Rick Perry Moves to the Right on Immigration

Town Hall ^ | October 7, 2011

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Gov. Rick Perry supporters can post this information 'till they're fingers are numb and be continually met with opposition. Maybe now that the MSM has "discovered" the facts (though finding it necessary to misidentify it as "Moves to the Right" to save face) from a blog interview, maybe now the facts will become better understood.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I wrote this up to answer a FReeper yesterday who it turns out really didn't want to know (was just playing wackamole with me) so I'll post it here for those who might find it informative.

No doubt position papers and policy speeches are coming -- as they will with the other candidates. Perry has a book "FED UP" -- with a forward by Newt Gingrich

Perry has quite loudly stated he wants lower taxes, less regulation and ligation. He wants less federal government oversight of states and a return to a more local control of education. He wants to make Washington D.C. as inconsequential as possible in our lives.

Many of the actions he's taken as governor show his commitment to exactly those goals -- as he is actively been fighting the feds on many of them and winning some.

If you're not happy knowing that 48% of jobs in the country were in Texas, I can't help that. It is a fact. The state of Texas has been a lab showing how less government has worked.

Legislation that pinned back the ears of trial lawyers has created a boom in medical personnel and facilities as they have swarmed into Texas. Buying health insurance across state lines would be a good thing. Let's open up that free market again. Obamacare will be history.

States along with Texas are having a friendly competition to see who can bring businesses to their states -- Florida and Wisconsin (among others) have made a friendly climate and have watched businesses relocate to their states. Right to work and no state income tax are big pluses in some states. High tax states and states with union control and over regulation are losing as businesses leave, taking jobs and revenue to more friendly states.

Perry wants the border sealed. He wants federal control of our international border and national security laws enforced. He does not believe in amnesty. As president, Perry will not leave this as a problem to fester along the border or in border states or continue to watch it bleed across the country. If a worker program is on the table and the laws are enforced and the border is sealed and the drug cartels are killed off -- we are probably getting back to a normal way of life on the border. Also, all the federal give away programs that have encouraged citizens and illegals to drift to the Democratic Party will be viewed critically. Perry is for a conservative ascendancy not a continued slide toward socialism.

He believes in American exceptionalism and standing with our allies.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

A good essay on Gov. Rick Perry and Texas:

Why I Support Rick Perry October 4, 2011 / 7:17 pm • By Dr. Melissa Clouthier (also posted on FR)

[org.whodat]

Mean while in the real world; http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/herman-cains-surprising-rise-to-gop-front-runner/2011/10/06/gIQAgn7FRL_story.html

[ari-freedom]

"I think what caused the hang up was that after it was passed, it was amended to give Homeland Security complete discretion on how, when and whether the fence ever gets built. Obviously with this president, that means it will never be completed."

all we are asking for right now is a commitment to build the fence as the 2006 law was originally intended.

[ari-freedom]

btw BOO HOO on the high maintenance people from Iowa who forget that the rest of the country doesn’t really revolve around them.

[ziravan]

He referred to illegals as “Texas Residents” while not apologizing his regret about his heartless comment.

Words have meaning. He is legitimising their presence by calling them residents. If someone breaks into my house, they might at that moment “reside” in my house, but that does not make them residents of my household.

That Gov. Perry does not understand the difference between invader and resident fully explains his current place in the polls. This is, after all, a REPUBLICAN Primary.

You can keep calling coddling illegals conservative all you like. How’s that working out for you?

[OddLane]

What is there to understand?

Perry's record is clear.

[NavVet]

Perry opposing the Dream Act is like Romney opposing Obamacare. The truth of his actions speaks louder than the lie of his words.

[freekitty]

Don’t buy it. Mainly because he is inviting illegals to live here.

[NavVet]

So he supports each state giving tuition breaks to illegals just as long as it is not a federal law and he only supports a partial fence. Sounds like he supports illegal immigration to me.

[dennisw]

Rick Perry you ain’t in Texas anymore!
Rick Perry is evolving on illegal immigration and building a fence. He realized his wise guy no-fence Texas approach does not fly nationwide for the Republican primaries. Tons of liberals want an end to illegal immigration, and even more independents.

I see this a mid-course correction that Rick Perry will live up to as president. Why is any sane person sympathetic to illegal immigration when our economy is so bad? Franklin D Roosevelt rousted and booted out a few million illegal Mexicans and Okies and other Americans gladly took those agricultural jobs. Eisenhower booted them out with “Operation Wetback”

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Perry opposing the Dream Act is like Romney opposing Obamacare. The truth of his actions speaks louder than the lie of his words.

Hardly. The 2001 Texas Dream Act is an education act not an immigration act like the Federal Dream Act.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Talk to the Feds.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Don’t buy it. Mainly because he is inviting illegals to live here.

Texas is spending hundreds of millions of dollars of state money to do what the Feds won't. Sorry if we aren't doing it well enough to suit you.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Nice. A link to a Ron Paul site.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

What’s “evolving” is that the MSM can’t ignore Gov. Perry’s positions anymore.

[Meet the New Boss]

In carefully reading his answer on the Secure Fence Act, he did more than side-step the question about building out the fence originally envisioned by the Secure Fence Act. He indicated that in place of the fencing contemplated by the Act, he would only fence what he deems to be "strategic" which is so vague and unspecific as to sound like a typical campaign promise. His answer to the question as to whether the Secure Fence Act would be built by President Perry is NO, instead only the amount of fence that President Perry deemed "strategic" would be fenced.

He certainly never took issue with the premise in the question asked him, which suggested that Perry has in the past made clear that not inconveniencing farmers is the most important thing, and we can expect that that will continue to be the case.

I think from his answer, he will NOT build the fence contemplated by the Act, but only what he considers "strategic," which is probably going to be the minimal he can get away with from a public relations standpoint.

He then goes back into his stock talking point about boots on the ground. Of course, as any longtime observer of Congress knows, maintaining the annual funding for high numbers of boots on the ground is more difficult than a one-time cost of extensive fencing with a lower annual appropriation for boots on the ground because fewer troops are needed for fenced area than completely open border.

More troublesome is what we can glean from this as to Perry's already stated desire to legalize the illegals working here today by dubbing them "guest workers" without letting them vote. His answer is that when the Perry administration decides that the border is "secure", then he would move forward with comprehensive immigration reform.

So I think we can expect some token efforts at fencing in so-called "strategic" areas for public relations purposes, some increased annual appropriations for border troops for a year or two, and then the Perry administration declaring the border "secure" and proceeding with the legalization of the illegals.

His idea of legalizing them but denying them voting rights will not fly for long. Americans do not want an entire class of "second class citizens." Either they will go ahead and give them the path to citizenship at the first bite at the apple, or wait a couple of years and then do it.

Bottom line, expect a public relations-oriented effort at "border security" followed by a quick push for legalization.

"Question 8. Obviously you don’t build a fence across every square inch of the border or you’ll be going across roads or blocking farmers from being able to get to water in some places. That’s an issue you’ve brought up a lot and it makes sense although you’ve also explicitly said that you support strategic fencing in certain areas. That being said, Congress has already passed a bill to build a border fence for 854 miles across the border. In fact, it was supposed to be completed in 2009, but we’re still not making any significant progress on it under the Obama Administration. If Rick Perry becomes President of the United States, would that fence on the border be completed in your first term?"

Rick Perry: "I have long been a proponent of strategic fencing because it is a critical component of border security, and it works when used in the right places.

"I think what caused the hang up was that after it was passed, it was amended to give Homeland Security complete discretion on how, when and whether the fence ever gets built. Obviously with this president, that means it will never be completed.

"If I’m elected, I will direct my Secretary of Homeland Security to expedite construction of strategic fencing along the border, especially in high traffic areas where manpower alone is insufficient to do the job.

"But it’s important to remember that fencing is only one component of an overall border security strategy. A fence is only as secure as it is manned.

"That’s why I would increase manpower on the border, starting with thousands of National Guard and border patrol agents, and I’d also make greater use of unmanned aerial vehicles to help gather real-time law enforcement intelligence.

"We know for a fact that increased manpower is effective, because we’ve proved it in Texas with our $400 million border security effort."

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Meanwhile in the real world: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-perry-raises-17-million-in-third-fundraising-quarter/2011/10/05/gIQAFG1NNL_story.html

[Cincinatus' Wife]

In carefully reading his answer on the Secure Fence Act, he did more than side-step the question about building out the fence originally envisioned by the Secure Fence Act. He indicated that in place of the fencing contemplated by the Act, he would only fence what he deems to be "strategic" which is so vague and unspecific as to sound like a typical campaign promise. His answer to the question as to whether the Secure Fence Act would be built by President Perry is NO, instead only the amount of fence that President Perry deemed "strategic" would be fenced.

Gov. Perry is correct. He sidestepped nothing. He said what he has always said.

Gov. Perry does not oppose building a border fence. He has said: " The bigger issue is that you’re never going to have a conversation that is anything more than an intellectual exercise about immigration until you secure the border. That is what we must focus on as a country. I do not agree that building a 1,800-mile barrier is thoughtful. It’s an easy answer. I think it’s a cop out for anyone who’s actually been on the border. It’s like building a wall from Bangor, Maine to Miami, Florida. What does work is strategic fencing in your metropolitan areas, having the boots on the ground. We are woefully understaffed on that border.

We have the technology. Predator drones are being flown in United States air space as we speak. Why not fly those from Brownsville, Texas, to El Paso and to Tijuana and back and use that real-time information for local law enforcement, our state law enforcement and our federal counterparts? That’s how you thoughtfully secure that border, and then you can have a discussion about what type of immigration reform we want to consider as a country. But not until then. Too many times, we’ve been told, if we’ll just pass this immigration reform then we’ll secure the border. And it hasn’t happened...."

Gov. Perry has said that conservative ascendancy needs to happen. I agree. I've lived in Arizona (20 years) and in Texas (20+years) and this problem has grown steadily as social engineering programs grew.

The time for the conversation is NOW. The Federal government has let this happen, refuses to acknowledge it, uses it for political fodder, has people going at each other, keeps mandating programs that the state must follow fund (education and medical care) fund.. this must stop. In 2001 Gov. Perry and the Texas Legislature agreed to in-state tuition for children of illegals if they'd been in Texas schools for 3 years, graduated and wanted to continue on to college -- the student pays for their education and this helps Texas spend less money on assistance programs to citizens made dependent on social programs. The Federal government created the problem and Texas is trying to work the problem and come up with solutions to help mitigate the problems that they've caused.

It's easy to "blame" a border governor for all these woes but it is the people and the governors in these border states who are on the "front lines." We are not waving illegals into the country. We're just the first in line to feel the impact. And the cost of crime (drugs and human trafficking) is a terrible burden on us.

I think it would be a great idea if you and all the other states, each individually sent Texas $100 million a year to add to what WE here in Texas pay from OUR state budget to help patrol the 1250 mile INTERNATIONAL border for the rest of you, because the Federal government (whose job it is) refuses to.

Instead of all the anecdotal evidence of where Gov. Perry stands on the border issue, it would be better to do some research, find out what he has said and give some thought to why we have arrived at this point.