« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Is Perry’s DREAM Act more awful than Romneycare?

At this point it’s becoming clearer that it’s a two-person race. Whatever “forces” control this process are shoving Perry and Romney to the top of the pack and barring any major upsets, we will choose between the two of them.

The professional pundits and establishment Republicans are telling us the important question is which candidate can attract Independents and conservative Democrats (an oxymoron if I ever heard one).  That strategy failed miserably in 2008 and we have even less reason to  believe it will work in 2012.

Among other things, those of us who care about what a candidate believes and how he would actually govern the country must consider the important question of whether we hate Perry’s version of the DREAM Act more than we hate Romney’s version of Obamacare.

First, I have to give props (or “propes” if you say it with a Texan accent) to Gov. Perry for not backing down from his policy and his convictions on immigration. Whether you agree with him or not, you must admit he’s a straight shooter who does not waffle.

Contrast this to Gov. Romney’s ever evolving excuses for his MA healthcare plan. He’s loved it, he’s hated it.  It was a good idea gone bad when the legislature got its hands on it.  It’s a state’s rights issue. Pick a day, pick an excuse.  But don’t worry, he’s going to repeal Obamacare. Or for sure, he’s going to give states waivers.

Clearly, Perry’s policy to grant in-state tuition rates to children of illegal aliens is extremely unpopular with the Tea Party and with the conservative base. Although hardly the equivalent of full-blown amnesty, many see it as the nose of the camel under the amnesty tent.

That said, it’s worth remembering that our revered President Reagan signed an amnesty bill, which granted amnesty to 3 million an unknown number of illegal aliens in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act.  It was far more radical than anything Perry has done or has proposed.

Both Romney’s Romneycare plan and Perry’s cracking the door to amnesty are state programs. Neither has proposed imposing these on the entire nation. But they do give us insights into their governing style and moral philosophies which are important indicators.

In Massachusetts, every resident of the state was forced to purchase health insurance, whether they wanted it or not. In Texas, taxpayers were forced to subsidize the college education of illegal immigrants.  On my personal liberty scale, I’d feel more violated by the Romneycare. YMMV (your mileage may vary).

As a Christian and a conservative, I confess that I am personally conflicted about the immigration issue.  I understand the arguments. I know we must secure the border as the first order of business. I know that we must enforce E-verify and let’s have a robust guest worker program with tamper-proof  ID’s.

But the fact remains that we have millions of people here illegally. They’re not going to just disappear once the border is secure. Something is going to have to be done with them. Republicans and conservatives just sound silly when we give the trite answer that they can just go home and try again later. We all know that is not going to happen.

I don’t have a problem sending home adult men and women who have broken our laws to come to this country. But in my soul, I wrestle with how to act justly toward the children of those lawbreakers. They did not cross the border illegally. They just had the misfortune of being born to a criminal and I can’t seem to justify punishing them for the sins of their parents.

Not the stock Tea Party/conservative answer, I know. But I suspect there are many others who wrestle with this issue and are also conflicted. It’s not a settled matter in their hearts.

For me, and for others who have endeavored to come to terms with this, Perry’s defense of in-state tuition for children born to illegal aliens doesn’t seem excessively far off the conservative reservation.  I don’t hate the idea as much as I hate the idea of Romneycare.

And lets be honest.  Politically, pragmatically, having a slightly softer position toward the children born to illegal aliens may appeal to minorities, Independents and those enigmatic “conservative” Democrats. It does allow Perry to steal an arrow from Romney’s centrist quiver.

Perry isn’t my candidate yet, but his position on in-state tuition for children of illegal aliens is not a deal-breaker for me.

On the other hand, Romneycare is one of several serious deal-breaker issues Romney has dragged with him into this race.  I would vote for him in a race against Obama, but he’s not someone I could enthusiastically support or campaign for.

 crosspost

 

 

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

  • wacowboy

    I think that sometimes we conservatives can get caught up into strict black and white stances when it comes to immigration issues, particularly of the illegal kind.

    Do I like the idea of tax dollars going to partially fund tuition for someone who is not a legal citizen of this country? Of course not!

    But we do have to realize the sheer impracticality of making a philosophy of dealing with immigrants around the concept of “round ‘em up and send ‘em back”. sounds nice and law-abiding, but in reality it is impossible.

    The reality is that there are illegals and there are going to be until the Feds secure the border. At least this sets the children of illegals who are on a path to citizenship up to be productive members of society.

    purists might not like it. But the stance is practical as can be.

  • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

    Until the judge killed it, illegals were heading for the exits in AZ.

    Can’t refute that. The collective MSM was wailing and moaning and gnashing its teeth about it.

    • acat

      the State. Most LEOs were already running people past ICE.

      The two effects SB1070 had on the ground were to standardize it, and to prevent any municipality from declaring itself a “sanctuary”.

      If any illegals were leaving because of SB1070, it’s because they bought the hype, not because of anything in the bill.

      Mew

      • rightwingmom52

        that since AL passed its immigration law similar to SB1070, we have illegal immigrants leaving the state. Does it really matter if the exodus is because of the bill itself or the fear of the bill?

        For the record, I happen to like the common sense, and yes, compassionate, approach of the Texas Dream Act. Your statement about the feds lack of securing the border upthread is spot on, and I’m not sure everyone understands that such failure puts a much heavier burden on the states, especially those on the border.

        • acat

          Since AL is a tad further from the border (even though it’s a straight shot along I-10) I know y’all get more than maybe Montana or Idaho… but I’m glad to hear they’re self-deporting.

          Could also be related to the Mexican economy growing faster than the U.S. economy as well, but .. realistically, the only reason to find out why is to know if it’s worth repeating. (crash the economy, illegals flee .. not worth it)

          Mew

        • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

          n/t

          • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

            No?

          • http://whattoreadtoday.blogspot.com/ Paula

            It’s not exactly the same thing, is it? The children didn’t actually break any laws.

          • gekster

            1. Must have lived in Texas for three years. Not an entitlement.
            2. Must have graduated from High School. Not an entitlement.
            3. Must gain entrance into a collage.(No AA,no special privelege for being a minority) Not an entitlement.
            4. Must pay thier own way, instate tuition, (they do reside in the state).
            Not an entitlement.

            Where is the entitlement.
            Not asking you, but the person you replied to.

          • acat

            (null)

          • gekster

            ntntnt

          • acat

            This calls for a vocal defense. Cat’s got your back. (not your tongue)

            Mew

          • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

            And gives them one more reason to stay here illegally.

          • gekster

            Where is the entitlement to illegles.

          • http://whattoreadtoday.blogspot.com/ Paula

            The in-state tuition cost in TX is approximately half of the non-resident price. The schools are subsidized by the state, though I don’t know exactly how the bookkeeping is done – whether it’s a direct transfer of funds per student or more of a block grant type of transfer.

          • acat

            So, someone who’s lived in the State for 3 years while attending high school, unless they’ve been somehow “off the grid” (but still in school?) has paid property taxes – likely via rent – and sales taxes toward their education.

            Mew

          • californiagold

            Only five years ago Governor Mitt Romney praised Ted Kennedy for the fine work they did together to bring socialized medicine to Massachusetts.

            Romney in his own words

          • revivefederalism

            “If every state had a governor like Mitt Romney, we’d all be subject to an individual mandate even without Obamacare.”

        • http://whattoreadtoday.blogspot.com/ Paula

          You make a good point on this. I live in Ohio, where immigration is only beginning to affect our state. When we debate the issue, it’s mostly academic to us. My son’s school doesn’t have any limited English proficiency students to drain it’s budget. The entire state only has 35,000 such students, whereas Texas has 800,000!. Some districts in Texas and CA have a 1/3 to 1/2 of their students not speaking English proficiently.

          That’s just one facet of the immigration debate and the drain of resources on the economies of those states.

          To some extent, those of us not living in border states have to admit we don’t know what we don’t know about this issue.

          • rightwingmom52

            one of those compassionate conservatives, I really don’t want to see us lose our ability to show compassion. I am 100% against illegal immigration and any type of amnesty for illegals in our country. I do support streamlining the legal immigration process – not making it easy by any means. Becoming a citizen of this country should require some effort, but I personally know people for whom that process took years with a lot of money paid to immigration attorneys (who I think are gaming the system). I do not support our government allowing illegals to collect entitlements.

            Having said that, what I hear from a lot of teachers that, generally speaking, their Hispanic students are mannerly, smart, eager to learn, thankful, respectful – you get the point. They’ve grown up in the U.S., and they want to go to college and become citizens. As I understand the Texas Dream Act, the child has to have lived in Texas the 3 years leading up to high school graduation and sign an affidavit affirming that they are seeking legal residency. They are given no special treatment in getting into Texas colleges and universities, but must do so on their own merit. They are paying the tuition (with or without financial aid), and I’ve read they make up about 1% of those entering college. The fact of the matter is that we are not going to ship every illegal immigrant out of this country, so it seems to me that putting young people on a path to becoming a productive citizen is a good start in resolving part of the problem.

  • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

    If Romneycare is a disqualifier, so is the Texas Dream Act.

    • acat

      What – specifically – about the Texas Dream Act do you think disqualifies Perry?

      You’ve been given the facts. Gekster and I reiterated them to you above.

      You have yet to state *with specifics* why you oppose it. Is that because you can’t?

      Mew

      • http://whattoreadtoday.blogspot.com/ Paula

        n/t

  • revivefederalism

    http://www.legis.state.tx.us/billlookup/History.aspx?LegSess=77R&Bill=HB1403

    During the debate, I believe that Perry mentioned that the bill passed with very few dissenting votes. In my cursory search, I couldn’t find the voting record. Does anyone have a link to the voting record? Did it pass with a veto proof majority? How many times in the past ten years has it been brought up for repeal in the legislature? On those occasions, if any, how many votes did the motion for repeal get?

    This law has been in effect for over ten years now. I tend to think that it must have the widespread support of the Republicans in Texas and the voting public in general. In terms of the impact of this upon the national electorate, it seems unlikely that it would sway anyone to vote for Obama. If anything, I’d expect that the opposite would be true due to the nature of interest group politics.

  • dvdmsr

    is why these so-called immigration conservatives seem so upset about Perry allowing illegal aliens who are residents of Texas to pay the lower in-state tuition rate, rather than the out-of-state tuition rate required of non-residents of Texas, yet none of these so-called immigration conservatives seem concerned by the fact that Texas is letting illegal aliens attend college at all.

    I can understand if they support letting illegal aliens get emergency aid or police protection, butI can’t understand why they apparently are unconcerned that illegal aliens are taking a spots in college that would otherwise go to a legal resident, this is the bigger concern in my book, and they’re ignoring it. Are they suggesting its okay to do this? If so they’re no better than Perry on this issue, and given this fact, I can’t take their complaint against him (on this issue) seriously.

    Moreover, if they all suck on this issue as they apparently do, and they’re my choices, this issue becomes moot in my consideration of which will be the candidate I support.

  • Dafyd

    So. Let’s reason together on immigration in Texas.

    You’re five years old, and your parents haul you to Texas illegally. Now. Texas can a) let you grow up running around doing God knows what, or b) put you in school, where you might learn useful things.

    It gets to be your senior year, and it’s time to apply for college. Remember, your parents dragged you here as a minor. Perry’s Texas, which overwhelmingly passed the bill in question, argues that these individuals are better off getting an education at an in-state tuition rate than (again) running around doing God knows what.

    It’s a perfectly sensible position based on the following presuppositions:

    a) We have illegal immigrants running around.
    b) It’s absurd to suggest busing them all home.
    c) Well, let’s do /something/ productive with their kids.
    d) Hey, look. We have schools.

    Getting in a tizzy about In-state tuition is canned outrage, much like the tizzy over non-mandatory HPV vaccinations. ZOMG, they better not pay $5k a year for college, but if you zap them for $25k a year, then it’s okay?

    Bah.

    Places like Arizona have taken a policy that is somewhat more antagonistic toward illegal immigration. Texas has taken a point of view of: “Well, they’re here. Let’s try to make sure they’re busy, productive, and not engaged in nefarious activities.”

    I’m not saying it’s a policy I support, particularly; rather, that this policy is reasonable given the presuppositions that inform it. In a recession, immigration should be a relative non-issue right now; many immigrants are going home. Protectionism is the last thing we need right now. Sort it out after the recovery.

  • onemovoter

    It actually has people paying taxes into the state whether they are legal or illegal. They all buy things and pay the sales tax. These illegal immigrants at least pay the state taxes that qualify them for instate tuition, on top of the students graduating from a Texas high school.

    One other thing about the illegal immigrants. Texas is not allowed to throw them out of the country. They have to report them to ICE and right now ICE takes them and dumps them back into the population. Texas has it’s hands tied when it comes to this issue. It’s the reason why when looking at their options, the only one left was to help them out, because it would have cost more to do otherwise.

    It’s a shame that people who don’t live on the border states and know this issue are confused on how the state and federal laws work and don’t work. This is why the folks at the debate didn’t like that Perry didn’t conform to their idea of federal law. The problem is Perry can’t enforce federal law, until he gets into a position where he can. This is where Bachmann and Santorum don’t understand the differences and balances of state power and federal powers. It’s why governors tend to do better at the presidential level than legislators do.

  • acat

    e) The feds aren’t going to do jack or squat about the border.

    Mew

  • Common_Cents

    These loud mouthed smart lefties need to deal w/ the reality of their policy.

    I’d like to see thousands of illegals dropped off at san fran city hall.

    I would have issue if I was a parent of a kid who wanted to attend a TX university. Let’s see, we are out of state and get dinged for higher tuition But we’d get away with being from another COUNTRY and coming in illegally.

    Is there unlimited college spots for all the students who want to attend TX colleges? Or is accepting kids of illegals displacing other students?

    This is nothing but rationalization, especially when Fed govt is shirking its border duty, secondly the state responsibility.

    People who comply with the law are getting real tired seeing others leapfrog over them and cutting in line. (illegals, underwater mortgages getting help etc…) The responsible people end up getting screwed. There will be large backlash along these lines for any candidate that flirts with these positions.

  • acat

    the second shame is people who {darn} well ought to know better (cat stares at Tancredo..) insisting that we can seal the border and deport ‘em all without once mentioning what it would cost to hire the ICE and border patrol staff, take the land along the border via eminent domain, etc. etc.

    Yes, we can do things differently, but .. Texas has taken a pragmatic approach that gives us productive, immigrant-citizens. That sure looks like a win to me.

    Mew

  • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

    The hype sent a message, and it worked.

    So does government telling illegals it has no intention of enforcing its immigration laws.

  • acat

    And as I said to RWM52 above, I don’t care *why* illegals are self-deporting, except to determine if it’s repeatable at a reasonable cost.

    Mew