Perry on in-state tuition for illegals: How else were they supposed to pay for it?

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?

So what happens when state law violates federal law? States rights are important but can (or should) state law be able to violate federal law (ignoring for a moment that the last 2 presidents have done their best to pretend it doesn’t exist). I’m seriously trying to understand this. The federal government is suing AZ for supposedly not following federal law (under the premise that it’s their job to enforce it). Yet, we all know AZ’s laws are meant to enforce federal laws. Meanwhile states that coddle illegals get a pass and undermine the efforts of those trying to follow the law.

And in this case, what TX allows could very easily impact other states because once they establish roots they’re free to travel the country at will, especially since they have to have some kind of (fake) ID to do anything from renting a house, opening a bank account, driving, etc. I’m concerned that we’re quickly becoming a country that picks and chooses what laws to follow and what ones to violate.

This isn’t just about TX. I live in OR and about every other week there’s an accident involving an illegal alien driving drunk. A few years ago we had one who raped a couple of Nuns...NUNS for crap sakes. He’d been on their radar for a while but because OR is a sanctuary state the police weren’t allowed to pick him up for violating US law. It simply isn’t working for states to decide whether or not to enforce immigration law.

Cindie

YOU are trying to understand this? *I* for the life of me cannot reconcile the federal government MANDATING that the states, and all jurisdictions within the several states, provide a “free” K-12 education for ALL children, including those of illegals, yet that same government claims an individual state, through its legislature, cannot choose to provide a tuition break for community colleges or state universities to those same students?

In essence, the feds are saying: Pay $140K to educate these kids for 13 years, but when they finish 12th grade, stop cold. You can’t knock some off his tuition by charging him the same in-state tuition of his former classmates.

Just from a practical perspective, let’s take “Maria,” the hypothetical daughter of illegals. Her parents brought her here illegally when she was 5, so she’s not an ‘anchor baby.’ She’s gone to TX public schools for 13 years under a federal mandate; then on to a TX Community College where she’s earning an AA with a tuition break from the State of TX. She IS paying tuition; she’s not eligible for federal loans. For entry to the latter and to take advantage of the tuition break, as I’ve read from Texans’ posts here, Maria would have been admitted via an affidavit stating that she has resided in TX for at least 3 years, and graduated from a TX high school.

When Maria gets her AA from said TX Community College, what incentive is there for her to move to OR, or any other state, for a job? You can BET she’s not going to move to VA unless and until she acquires US citizenship.

On the other hand, an illegal who has no education has every incentive to keep moving until he finds someone who will employ him. He will find a ‘sanctuary city’ somewhere in America where he can work unimpeded. He can get his fake ID anywhere; it’s not, so far as I’ve heard or read, handed out with the AA. They got them long before the 2001 TX law, and would get them long after if it were rescinded. so let’s take that off the table.

I’ve stated before that I, personally, favor neither tuition breaks nor amnesty for illegals. There are plenty of people from around the world who are willing to go thru the lengthy and expensive legal process of becoming U.S. citizens.

Further, I chose to live in a state that not only doesn’t give tuition breaks to illegals, it doesn’t even admit them to our state schools. It does, however, again thanks to the federal mandate, educate them K-12.

Interestingly, within 15 miles of my home is a ‘sanctuary county’ in Maryland. Guess who has a major illegal problem and who doesn’t? But, neither VA nor MD is on the border, where it is a whole other can of worms. And settling the problem as it exists there, I submit, is up to the people of Texas.

Enforcement of the border is a definite, clearly enumerated federal power that our national government has forsaken for decades now. Until that federal duty is taken seriously, the border states are left to deal with it as best they can, each in its different way. And, due to the illegals’ mobility, so now are all the other states. No one much cared when it affected only AZ/CA/TX/NV.

I understand that, and I was not being facetious. But what happens if he’s elected president? Will he enforce the law (thus sending home those he previously promised an education & their family who are here illegally)? This is a very sticky issue and he’s already compromised. Why not go the route of AZ as Governor Brewer has? He had a choice and I know he chose what he thought was best for his state but I’m not sure how he’ll reconcile the two laws. It’s a legitimate issue. There are questions & concerns about every candidate. This is one of my big ones with Perry. I understand he says he supports the federal law but some president is going to have to start enforcing it or it might as well not exist.

Cindie

I honestly don’t know what Perry would do if elected. I’m not an expert on or cheerleader for Gov Perry. Just trying to learn what I can about him and the others. My interest here is the compelling conflict between federal and states powers and the limitations on those powers.

Anyone coming into the presidency who wants to get serious about this issue will start by ramping up guarding the border, i.e., the ‘boots on the ground’ on our side of the border, drones, you name it. For reasons known to Perry and Texans who actually live on the border, there is opposition to building a fence and I don’t feel qualified to opine one way or the other. Never been to the Tex/Mex border.

Our new president would probably begin by stopping the inflow. Then s/he can deal with deporting permanently those who’ve been here and caused trouble, from serious felonies on down, assuring there’s no way for them to return. Then s/he can deal with who’s left.

By the time anyone would get around to deporting those who are here illegally but minding their own business, that president would have exhausted two terms. But it would be a good start.

The social/cultural differences between TX/AZ to me are unknowns. The TX law was adopted in 2001; the AZ law not until (IIRC) 2009. Lots happened in between. Certainly violence on the border has gone up exponentially over those years, tho I know it’s existed for quite some time. TX is a helluva lot bigger than AZ, both in geography and population, and that would affect how the situation was decided differently in the respective states. TX never had a Gov. Napolitano, either! She may have been so bad that she allowed the situation to get out of control, forcing Gov. Brewer to take tougher measures. Lots and lots to learn, that’s for sure.

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.

Saying that it would happen regardless of whether Perry signed it, didn't sign it, or vetoed it and was overridden is making excuses for Perry's behavior in the following years. Perry could have taken a stand and refused to sign it. It would have sent a message while not wasting taxpayer money on a veto that would be overridden. But apparently the mean old Democrats and RINOs were twisting his arm and holding him hostage or something, so he had to sign it. Or he didn't have a spine. Or he believed in it.

I'm going to lean towards him believing in it, because in 2007 when Republican legislators were filing legislation to overturn it, Perry came out in defense of it. All of the sudden his supporters can no longer claim that Perry was having his arm twisted by the mean old Democrats and RINOs, because there were Republicans in the legislature wanting to overturn it!

The fact that in 2011 he is still defending it and criticizing those who speak out against it, when the atmosphere is even more against it than it was in 2007, well that definitely leaves me to believe the Perry wasn't getting his arm twisted or that he was spineless, and that in fact he supports it. You don't defend it in 2007 and 2011 and even attack those who are against it unless you firmly believe in it.

FALSE:

There is no mandate in Texas for any business of any size to use e-verify.

The state of Texas does not screen employees using E-verify.

Source- Rick Perry:

Is Texas state government really not using the verification service singled out by Hutchison? If not, does that mean it isn’t checking whether job applicants are legally living here?

During Friday’s debate, Gov. Rick Perry said: “E-Verify would not make a hill of beans’ difference when it comes to what’s happening in America today. You secure the border first, then you can talk about how to identify individuals in an immigration situation.”

Still, the state does screen prospective employees.

Allison Castle, Perry’s press secretary, said: “We use I-9 forms in compliance with federal law.

I debated answering your idiotic screed when you first posted it. At the time, rather waste my time answering your race-baiting nonsense, I basically threw my hands up in the air and said “ah what’s the point, screw it, I’m not in the mood to argue”. Now that someone else has answered my post, I have decided that I’m going to have a short say about your snarkey little bit of idiocy. Not ONE PENNY of America’s education funds should be spent on those who are in this country illegally... Not ONE PENNY. Who the hell cares if they were brought into the country by their parents. Screw you jonrick46, who the hell do you think you are, telling me I shouldn’t be OUTRAGED? I pay over $5500.00 per year of MY Texas property taxes to the local school district, which then has to surrender a large portion of that to the state for “redistribution” to “poorer” school districts. This is personal, jackass. Your post, suggests rascism on my part and then goes off on an idiotic tangent about eating children; but it doesn’t mean sh!t to me. What you have said is just pure stupidity. The money I pay in taxes being diverted to schools which are loaded with the kids of illegals does. That is money my kids and my neighbor’s kids don’t get, it has been stolen by the illegal aliens and their kids, who don’t have any right to it.

Since you don't seem to care what happens to these kids from parents who crossed the border illegally, would you still go for my modest proposal? I thought not.

I tried to show, by borrowing the words from Johnathan Swift's, A Modest Proposal written in 1729, that all your concern about the burden of these children is nothing new. It is the same concern the British had for the burden of poor Irish and their children in Britain. I am sure there was the same concern when the Irish invaded our country during the potato famine. But the question remains, what are you going to do now that they are here? Without a Scotty to beam them up, there is not much you are going to do, unless you want to violate federal law which says you must educate the children in your state. Even if you were to pull a state's rights issue and not educate them, do you think they are going to pull up stakes and move back to Mexico?

The colleges and junior colleges in your state are making money from the tuitions paid by these children of illegals. In fact, California for that same reason has just passed a similar educational residency bill. Are you going to deny your state colleges that income?

Your answer is to not spend one dime of education money on them. For that, since you don't want my words of wisdom and wit, I'll give you Governor Rick Perry's words that do speak for the people of Texas:

"The federal DREAM Act is an amnesty bill, and I strongly oppose amnesty. The Texas educational residency bill was vastly different.

Because the federal government has failed in its basic duty to protect our borders, states are forced to deal with illegal immigrant issues.

In Texas, we had to deal with the children of illegal immigrants residing in our state and attending our schools, as the federal government requires states to educate these children through the public school system. Lawmakers in Texas – indisputably one of the most conservative states in America – were virtually unanimous in their decision.

The Legislature determined the payment of in-state college tuition is available to all students who have lived in Texas for at least three years and graduated from a public high school. If you meet those requirements, you pay in-state tuition, whether you relocated from Oklahoma, Idaho, Canada or Mexico. The only difference is that Texas residents who aren’t documented must be on the path to pursue U.S. citizenship to be allowed to pay in-state tuition.

There were a number of reasons the bill received widespread support among conservatives. Importantly, it has never had a cost to Texas taxpayers. In fact, our institutions of higher learning would actually lose tens of millions of dollars in lost tuition payments if the law were repealed. And it would lower the odds that these students would receive subsidized health care or end up in prison. Protecting taxpayers was a serious concern, given that a Supreme Court decree already requires taxpayers to pay for K-12 education for undocumented students."

If I was the Governor of Texas, I would empower state law enforcement to round up every illegal thay could find and dump them back across the border, or put them on flights to their native countries. There would be a SERIOUS confrontation with the federal government over the issue, including arrests of every Federal agent who stepped their foot across the Texas border and tried to “enforce” their open borders policy. I can guarentee you that the American people would rise up en-mass to support Texas if it were to do that. This issue affects all states nowadays and is causing state budgets to run deeply in the red supporting the school/medical/penal/welfare costs of illegals.

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.