« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Immigration and Border Security (Part 3 of 3): Rick Perry.

Rick Perry runs for President after serving a long term as the governor of Texas. Texas shares over ½ of the US-Mexican Border with our neighbors to the South. Texas has benefitted from a generally positive historical relationship Mexican migratory workers and has seen some of the best benefits that immigration can offer the United States. Texas also has seen some of the worst. Narcotic traffic, slavery, human smuggling and sadistic violence are also part and parcel with this long stretch of the Mexican Border. Thus Governor Perry has compiled a uniquely contradictory record on immigration and border security that reflects the duality that Texans live with every day.

This is the 3rd part of a three part series on immigration and border security that examines the positions and past histories of the three most popular Republicans currently running for President. Part 1 examined Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. Part two studied Former Governor, Mitt Romney. Today, as with the previous articles, I start with Governor Perry’s stated positions.

Governor Perry is a recent addition to the GOP field. Thus, his campaign website remains an incomplete work in progress at present. Therefore, some of what I present below represents the perceptions that other people have of Rick Perry’s positions on these issues. I apologize if these representations are somewhat inaccurate.

On his Gubernatorial Website, Rick Perry discusses his positions regarding some of the tragic violence that has occurred in Mexico. His statement decrying the current state of border security follows below.

While our focus begins with preventing the worst of the violence currently raging in northern Mexico from spilling over into the United States, the violence is only part of the destruction that can result from a porous border. The free flow of drugs, weapons and people resulting from inadequate security can undercut economic development, education and trade. As such, they can hurt Texas families in every way imaginable, from loss of jobs to the loss of family members to addiction, imprisonment or death.

Governor Perry has approached this issue from the standpoint of a small government conservative. He has worked to help localities near the border put “more boots on the ground” in order to combat problems in these individual localities. In 2005, he and the Texas State Legislature gave The Texas Border Sheriffs Association $6 Million to hire more people to patrol the Mexican Border. This was dubbed Operation Linebacker and operated under the premise that a larger police presence would successfully deter criminal activity along the border.

When Operation Linebacker failed to meet its intended objective, Governor Perry opted for a significantly larger investment in 2008. He viewed this issue with a much greater priority when his state and local law enforcement officials began capturing illegal aliens from Syria, Jordan and Iraq attempting to exploit the still-porous Mexican border. This resulted in significant seizures of narcotics, and gang members from notorious criminal organizations such as MS-13. This was called Operation Border Star and remains in effect at the present with some positive results, but a still unsecured 1,300 mile international border.

Governor Perry’s record on immigration and border security also involves aspects that have been met with significant skepticism. Texas signed a piece of legislation known as the Texas DREAM Act that gave the children of undocumented workers in state tuition at Texas colleges and universities. Many taxpayers rightfully resent the fact that their monies go towards the subsidization of tuition for students whose parents came to the United States illegally. This, I believe is a fair and valid criticism. In my opinion, Governor Perry should never have signed the DREAM Act into law.

He has also been attacked for attempting to improve road access to Mexican traffic thru Texas in accordance with the NAFTA Treaty. This was dubbed Rick Perry’s Highway to Hell, and has become a staple anti-Rick Perry talking point. Opponents of this now defunct project voiced concern that Governor Perry was selling out national security to improve trade and were convinced that this was not a sound risk for him to take. The validity of this attack should perhaps be considered from the viewpoint that it was championed by Jerome Corsi. Corsi remains utterly convinced that President Barack Obama’s Secret Kenyan Birth Certificate is out there somewhere – like The Living Elvis.

Thus, given his unique perspective on border security, Governor Rick Perry offers a set of positions and a past record that is both curious, and at times, vexing. He has been awakened to the cold reality that an unsecured Texas-Mexico Border is an opportunity for criminal activity that turns otherwise quaint and charming border towns into hives of villainy and scum. Thus, despite his belief that the Federal Government should secure a nation’s borders, he has invested significant blood and treasure in stopping narcotics from crossing his state’s borders.

Frustrations over issues such as this may cause him to occasionally rail against inefficient and uncaring governance from Washington, DC to the point where he once mentioned succession. It would be interesting to see how he felt if he were elected, and the shoe were on the other foot.

However, he also comes from a state that has benefitted heavily from the labor of Mexican migrant labor. He weighs this in the balance and tends to favor a policy that allows these people to still enter the country and compete with Americans for employment. In an economy with 9% unemployment, he may have to change his mind, eschew such policies as The Dream Act and take care of American workers first. A failure to do this could encumber his efforts to put unemployed Americans back to work. However, Rick Perry would counter this argumentation by asking which state actually is creating jobs in America today?

In conclusion, Rick Perry has a classically Texan policy towards the border. When people cross the border to work hard and stay out of trouble, he encourages their presence, and welcomes them as a part of the Texan economy. When foreign immigrants sell drugs, traffic in slaves and shoot people up with military-grade weaponry, he sends in The Texas Rangers. He tries to maintain a complicated dichotomy on this issue that will frustrate many Conservative Primary voters and could cause trouble to his Presidential ambitions. He may well have to recognize that Texas is a truly unique state to address issues of immigration and border security in a way that best benefits the other forty-nine states.

COMMENTS

  • texasmama

    this

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      And thank you.

    • texasmama

      Thank you for the work you put into this series of articles. As a Texan, I well know the double-mind we can have toward the illegals in our midst. Some of them are our neighbors, members of our churches, co-workers, and friends. We don’t know their legal status and probably don’t care. We do care, passionately, about our porous border that endangers us all in the areas Perry identified. We want the border SEALED. Once the holes in the dike are permanently sealed, we can debate what to do with those already here.

      Personally, I’d like to see every illegal who has already been convicted of crime immediately deported. I’d like to see a grace period during which an invitation is made for all here illegally, who have otherwise kept their noses clean, to have the opportunity to enter into a process to make them legal citizens. Until legal citizenship is attained, I believe that we should have a two-strike policy. Their illegal status is strike one. First time anyone is convicted of any crime more serious than a speeding ticket–vamoose.

      Is it fair to allow those who broke the law coming here to stay? No. It’s not fair to us or to the many who paid the price to come legally. But considering the extent of the problem, and the length of time this has been allowed to go on by our government–I’m not sure there is another viable solution.

      I also am very much opposed to The Dream Act, but I can see that in light of the fact that (thanks to our federal government) it is not currently possible to adequately deal with the problem of illegals, we have a generation of children growing up here that will either be a future productive member of society or another drain on it. If higher education can make it more likely they’ll be productive, well, I guess I can see why a governor might believe that is in the best interest of the state. Still not fair, though…

  • oldbird77

    most people would support Perry’s dichotomy as articulated in your last paragraph, as a sweeping generality at least. From my experience the vast majority of the illegal population are hard working and even entrepreneurial. They are people who have traveled thousands of miles for work when there are segments of the native population who won’t get off the couch to get a job. We want people like that here. It’s the specifics of any policy that get difficult. How to manage immigration properly to protect American workers (that want to work), to filter out the trouble makers, etc. I don’t think it should be as complicated as we are making it though.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      2 things hamper our policy. Purism and fear. A lot of people simply don’t want anyone who wasn’t born here to come here – under any circumstances whatsoever. That may hamper some aspects of even orderly, legal immigration.

      Another thing is a righteous and honest fear. When you capture people who could easily be radical terrorists, crossing your border any intelligent person will feel fear. Until the border is well-secured, rational attempts to let worthwhile and productive people come here redeem the American Dream in the classical tradition, will be met with skepticism and Nativistic impulses. Take one look at the sadistic creeps from the Sinaola Cartel and say these Nativists are 100% wrong.

      • texasmama

        Jack is right that this issue has to be looked at on more than one level. What was once a simple issue of how to control the stream of people wanting to immigrate in a way that benefits the immigrant and this country cannot be divorced from the change in the world scene. America has very real enemies and some of them have seen this as their golden opportunity to position themselves so that they can wage war from within.

      • aesthete

        I understand what you’re saying, and agree with it: there are good national defense/sovereignty reasons to be against open borders or absolutely unrestricted immigration. Beyond that, the reasons to close the border are almost nil: the “jobs” argument is breathtakingly ignorant, and goes against everything that Republicans and conservatives have ever said about the competitive marketplace. The nativist argument comparing all immigrants to Sinaola or the Zetas is both incredibly dumb (exactly what ethnicity is disproportionately being slaughtered by those groups?), and about as sound as arguments that compared all civil rights movement types to the Black Panthers during the Jim Crow era.

    • texasmama

      I do think that most American’s frustration with this stems from the lack of real effort to stop the influx of illegals. We are by nature a highly tolerant society, and we are not–no matter how some try to paint us–anti-immigration. I have a Korean friend who came here on a visa to attend college. This was probably at least 15 years ago, and she has been in the system to attain citizenship ever since. She finally was sworn in as a citizen this past spring. She is highly educated, married to a citizen, and a professional in the medical field–it should not have been that hard for her to become a citizen!

    • oldbird77

      would be to increase work visas by some factor of 10 and pay for increased admin costs and increased border security though fees on the businesses that employ the work visa workers (which also helps protect native workers by increasing costs of the immigrant work force beyond their lower pay), and then streamline citizenship for all immigrants coming through the proper channels. . . . and then come down like a ton of bricks on any employers that use illegal workers. If employers weren’t willing to hire illegal workers, there’d be many fewer of them here.

      • cwilson

        That’s 0.3% of our entire population. Every single year — and each one is permanent. source, table 1

        And you want to bump that number to 10M every year? I don’t think that’s sustainable.

        • cwilson

          Trying again:

          source, table 1

          In case the link didn’t work (again):
          http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/publications/LPR10.shtm

          • aesthete

            the market will bear. Clearly, the market will bear the illegals already here, even in defiance of government and even in the face of businesses losing their licenses. What is 1M to 10M, if the workers will a) not be made into citizens, b) go back home after they’re done working (as was the case with virtually every unskilled immigrant wave during the 1800s), and c) pay taxes that cover the misdeeds of their fellow workers? In reality, it’s just an arbitrary number: one that may or may not reflect an amount which keeps a market in equilibrium. In the case of many unskilled and tech labor markets, it is very clearly the case that the number imported to work is far too low, simply by observing general trends. It is wrong (and Malthusian) to assume that our country can only support X number of people living in it — and if one truly believed that, then one should be consistent and support some sort of licensing/quota scheme for children born to US parents, as well — after all, if a fully-grown immigrant willing to work isn’t sustainable, then an infant born to a US-born welfare case is surely no more sustainable in the long run!

          • cwilson

            Look, “sustainability” is probably the wrong word to use — and thanks for implying I “ought to” support forced sterilization. Sheesh.

            My point is, our economy would have to grow at an unbelievably high rate to create enough jobs — every year — to employ (a) the net natural growth in the workforce: those that enter after high school or college, minus those that die or retire, PLUS (b) an extra 10M legal immigrants every single year.

            By way of comparison, the labor force has grown by about 1.6M/year over the past 30 years (I should do a regression against an exponential growth curve to find the multiplicative growth rate rather than an additive one, but…)

            I’m not sure how that 1.6M/year breaks down between legal immigrants and “native” population growth (you can’t simply subtract 1M green cards per year and say 600K pop. growth, because some percentage of the green cards return home). But not even Tim Pawlenty’s magical 5% GDP growth rate can create 10.6M new jobs every year — 10x the rate of job creation under the Reagan AND Clinton booms.

            The fact is, oldbird pick a number out of his hat — “increase legal immigration by 10x!!” without, apparently, understanding the scale of the issue or knowing what our current legal immigration level is. Folks should do some math before suggesting patently unworkable schemes…

  • Michael_Bates

    To dismiss legitimate concerns about the Trans Texas Corridor as you did is an ad hominem argument of the worst kind.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      it “The Highway to Hell.” It was intended to connect Canada to Mexico via the US. Does Satan currently reside in Canada or Mexico? Inquiring exorcists want to know.

    • izoneguy

      Any different than the “proposed” TTC?

      In reality – high speed rail projects are going forward, to the tune of billions in budget overruns.

      California?s High-Speed Train Wreck

      Califorina?s Pet Project ? High Speed Rail ? Plans To Take Farmers?Land

      Farmers say they weren?t offered an opportunity to suggest a new rail
      route if their homes were affected. You?re saying that the species that are
      protected in thatproperty line can?t be sidestepped for us, but can for certain species that are preserve are more important than us? And our
      deemed worthy but we?re not?? said Anne Gaspar, another Hanford resident
      whose property is in the path of the railway.

      It is estimated that it will cost $45 billion dollars to connect San
      Francisco to San Diego by high-speed rail. State and federal taxpayers will be
      footing most of the bill. {Creating another government program that will be
      subsidized by Tax Payers for ?Ever? Just like Amtrak is still subsidized by Tax payers after 40 years of Failed ? So Called ? passenger service!}

      Calif. Gov. Jerry Brown backs high-speed rail plan

      Gov. Perry has learned a lesson. Hopefully President Perry will derail
      all these expensive tax payer funded high-speed rail boondoggles.

  • texasmama

    I suppose because this is an issue that is important to those of us having this conversation. I suspect, though, that as far as the national election is concerned–this issue has slid to the back burner for the majority of Americans who are far more alarmed over the economy. Illegal immigration has a very real affect on the health of our economy–but how many of the voters out there are only thinking jobs right now? Many voters, perhaps most(?), do not see illegal competition for their own job, so they don’t really care about it. Time will tell, but it may be that this issue will not render Perry unable to win the general election.

    • lastgopinillinois

      since McCain/Kennedy immigration reform bill was shot down in 2006. The american people have already spoken on this issue. They want to secure the border and enforce the law, neither of which has been done still 5 years later. Why dont we just do THAT?

  • acat

    This took a not-insignificant amount of time, especially since the Perry folks still don’t seem to have their web site up to speed. (One almost wonders if they’re still focus-grouping the wording … but that doesn’t seem like the Perry way)

    There are some on the right, Tancredo comes to mind, who want all illegals deported. There are others who view some of the tools – E-Verify – as government intrusions into private business.

    While I must agree that E-Verify is intrusive, it’s really just an augmentation to the normal “fill out this W2 (or W9) form” … and a defense-in-depth approach, requiring E-Verify nationwide, would encourage many illegals to self-return, as seen in Arizona under SB.1070.

    We do part company over the Texas Dream Act. As Texans do not pay an income tax, and as two of the requirements to qualify for the TDA are to have lived in Texas for 3 years, and to have graduated from a Texas high school, unoless you’re postulating a rather massive black market to avoid sales taxes, those covered by the TDA *have* paid taxes into the system.

    Mew

  • victrola

    I think Perry is unquestionably a solid-conservative in the big picture, but I guess this is why my choice in primaries often comes down to electability because EVERY candidate has their “heresies”. For Perry it’s illegal immigration: the Texas “DREAM Act” he signed into law, his opposition to AZ’s SB1070 and his stance against a border fence. I would easily argue the worst of any Republican running.

    Illegal immigration is one of those “litmus” issues for me and was my biggest beef with McCain. Different issues fire up different types of conservatives. I know some people have a more “Chamber of Commerce” view on illegal immigration, but as someone who lives in a border state, I think that’s an incredibly dangerous view that will kill this country.

    It doesn’t disqualify him in my book, but it’s a significant black mark, and for me anyway, it’s a bigger deal than say Romney’s health care plan in Massachusetts.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      .

    • aesthete

      How is favoring a free movement of labor (which seems to be closer to Perry’s position than “Welcome, rapists and drug smugglers!”) in any way worse than massively expanding government to make room for an overarching entitlement that restricts the choice of the individual in every aspect of his or her life?

      • victrola

        at least with Romney, the damage is limited to the State of Massachusetts, and can easily be repealed. With unfettered illegal immigration however, you have a problem for the whole country with millions of people that never leave and will push for more and more government aid. Illegal aliens move beyond the border states they illegally entered.

        Massachusetts requirement of health insurance for state residents doesn’t effect me, Texas having an open door policy illegal immigration policy (going so far as actually subsidizing college tuition) DOES effect me.

        While I strongly disagree with RomneyCare, I can at least see that one of the goal’s of the program was to find a way to stop the “free rider” problem of people going to an Emergency Room and not having to pay for it. The bill was once considered a conservative policy in some circles and was largely written by the Heritage Foundation. The problem is, when you let government in, it’s like a parasite that you can’t control.

        There’s not one Republican Presidential candidate running that’s not going to get rid of the nationwide individual mandate of ObamaCare, and my guess is the Supreme Court will strike it down anyway. It’s a moot issue as far as I’m concerned, but I still will fully concede it’s a black mark.

        My belief is illegal immigration is a much bigger problem for America as a whole than one state requiring residents to pay for their own health insurance.

    • mtbrimstone

      Here’s an example of the problem with a border fence. It looks good on paper, but those who want to get through will continue to find ways through:

      “The parking meters on International Street, which hugs the border fence in Nogales[, Arizona], cost 25 cents. Smugglers in Mexico tunneled under the fence and under the metered parking spaces, and then carefully cut neat rectangles out of the pavement. Their confederates on the U.S. side would park false-bottomed vehicles in the spaces above the holes, feed the meters, and then wait while the underground smugglers stuffed their cars full of drugs from below.”

      http://news.yahoo.com/drug-smugglers-tunnel-arizona-parking-spaces-193126687.html

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    Thanks for the balance analysis of all three candidates.

    The problem in Texas is older than the state itself. The federal government has a history of an unsecured border with periodic attempts to secure it with the Armed Forces. In between those attempts, Texas has had to make due with its own resources. The problem is not unique to Perry or even to the current political debate. The big difference is that now we have a political party and president intent on exploiting the issue for their own political gain.

  • runner12

    You summed up perfectly Perry’s often contradictory positions with regard to immigration. He is not pro-amnesty by any means, yet I can find several things that I still strongly disagree with him on.

    By placing his actions in the context of being the Gov. of Texas, it sheds some new light on this issue for me a little.

  • rubb

    The governor is like a lot of people here. The border region is a different world than most people can imagine. There has been a thriving personal level commerce across the border since Texas independence in1836 that has continued through the annexation as a state, the Mexican American War The US Civil War, even through the years of Pershing’s “Expeditions” against Mexican “Bandits”. But even on the border, most Americans, even those of Mexican heritage, believe there should be an orderly, organized system of immigration. A system that allows broad immigration that would necessarily narrow during times of high US unemployment makes sense. It is hard for a Texas teen to get a job hauling hay, framing and roofing houses, or even a lot of fast food jobs because of the immigrant population. This hurts the future of our teens when they don’t get out there and learn those lessons that come with those early minimum wage jobs. Those early, nasty low paid jobs help young people develop lifelong habits that make them more successful in life.
    Once we decide to be serious about enforcing immigration law, that unknown number of folks here must be dealt with. I think a multilayer system could be effective.
    1. Never allow a person who has entered our nation and worked illegally to apply for citizenship
    2. Allow immigrants a maximum of 10 years inside our borders to become a citizen or go home
    3. If an immigrant is found to have resided here lawfully for a period of years and not committed crimes, (including tax evasion and ID theft) allow them a 5 year resident alien permit to allow them to plan their return home.
    4. Stop all family sponsored immigration, either use a lottery, or a skills matching system to pick new immigrants.
    5. Get a court ruling that children of illegals are not “under the jurisdiction” or amend the constitution to limit birthright citizenship to those born to parents who area citizens or residing here as lawful resident aliens, this would also exclude tourist.
    There is my rough draft that passes muster with most Texans I know, but is probably not pure enough to pass Red State muster, who knows, tear it up if you must

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      is for a border fence, his Dream Act is of no concern. Bush sucked on immigration as well, but did he ever speak to La Raza? How about Romney?

  • aesthete

    but related to politics in general: when can we expect a post from streiff, RMJ or Jeff Emmanuel on Ghadaffi’s deposal, and what it means going forward?

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      and contradictory. You should see something soon. Days, not weeks, Aesthete.

      • aesthete

        nt

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          I opposed the action in the first instance but did write at the time that it was imperative that we remove Gadaffy to maintain the word of the US and our deterrance. I felt the same on Kosovo. The Dems can “win” small matters but they are clueless on long-term strategic imperatives.

          What is at stake now is to prevent a terror safe haven. Dems are usually not willing to do the hard political work for long term national security.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            nt

  • californiagold

    I like Perry on many levels, but on the issue of immigration, I don’t see much difference between Perry and Bush, or for that matter, Perry and McCain.

    Perry is very skilled at diffusing controversial issues, but with respect to immigration, there’s not a dimes worth of difference between his views and those of John McAmnesty.

    Check out the following video…in it, democrats praise Perry for his “moderate” immigration policies in Texas.

    • gekster

      Not some school program, but as implied, blanket amnesty.

      • californiagold

        Watch the video.

        As I stated, I like Perry, but I’m not going to be a cheerleader for any candidate. You shouldn’t either.

        • gekster

          And homer, you didn’t link a video.
          You should not post when high.

          • californiagold

            …as you obviously took it and imbedded it in your post.

            Get some sleep, you have alot of cheerleading to do in the morning.

          • Doc Holliday

            and I would actually like to see it, then comment.

          • gekster

            Your domment:
            Perry = Bush = McCain = amnesty
            californiagold Monday, August 22nd at 11:40PM EDT (link)
            I like Perry on many levels, but on the issue of immigration, I don?t see much difference between Perry and Bush, or for that matter, Perry and McCain.

            Perry is very skilled at diffusing controversial issues, but with respect to immigration, there?s not a dimes worth of difference between his views and those of John McAmnesty.

            Check out the following video?in it, democrats praise Perry for his ?moderate? immigration policies in Texas.

            Where is the link bongboy.

  • californiagold

    Here’s the link….

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRQaLdjtWkA

    • gekster

      It is some Democrats who “happen” to agree with him.
      Some democrats who like what he says.

      Here is the vid.
      Show me where a Democrat says, “praise’.

      You are a lefty a$$, and should put down the bong for a week.
      Your whole comment is a lie, and has been exposed.

      • Doc Holliday

        There are decent arguments against a wall in certain places. I think Perry was very wrong on the Texas Dream Act. I know people who paid out of state tuition in Texas, and I know people who joined the Texas National Guard to get in state tuition. I figure it it is good enough for American citizens, it is good enough for illegals.

        • gekster

          is that he claimed Democrat praise, where there is none.
          Nothing else. Nothing more.

          • californiagold

            It’s all there to see, as a democrat politician praised Perry for his immigration policy.

          • gekster

            And if said, ONE democrat does not make “Democrats”.

          • Doc Holliday

            she made that implication. But like I said, I did not see anything Perry mentioned in that video to be off the wall. If Dems agree, that does not always make it wrong. The problem with the wall is that makes perfect sense in a Georgetown Bar, but there are some really tough guys living on that border who have good reasons not to wall the place off.

          • gekster

            alot of times someone says “we” or “us’ when they are the only one.
            It is easy to claim a bunch of people, but how do you know it is not only themselves, claiming false support.

          • Doc Holliday

            my guess is she did have others ok her comments, but I can’t prove it. She was from McCallen I think, that is a majority Mexican-American area, she certainly had no political reasons to praise Perry.

          • californiagold

            First you said nobody praised Perry in that video. Now you admit “one” democrat did. Great work….

          • gekster

            That is not praiseing, that is agreeing.

          • Doc Holliday

            your video showed that. Everyone has said that Texas has a “special relationship” with Mexico, and Texas has to deal with things differently than other states. I agree with this, so a Texas Solution would not work on the national scale.

            I support Rick Perry at this point. And I don’t think immigration is the issue some think. From what I can tell, the only party that benefits from immigration fights is the Demonrat party. The reality is neither party has actually done anything to stop illegal immigration, or talk to the nation about the real immigration issues we face. But the Republicans have a way of looking bad, when really they have been anything but obstructive to a free flow of immigrants, legal and illegal.

          • gekster

            Democrats agreeing, not “praising” as was claimed.

          • gekster

            .,.,.,.,.,.,..,.,.,.

          • Doc Holliday

            and ask the clerk to call the roll :)

          • gekster

            Only that some agree.
            It’s a far fetch.

          • Doc Holliday

            if you don’t cotton to California Gold, I am with you on that. But certainly Perry is not strident on illegal immigration. The fact that Austin liberal newscasters said he was “moderate” and “crossing divides to get something done” says it all. Why you are technically correct that Dems did not “praise” him, you might have failed to see the forest for the trees. Perry is an immigration moderate, just like Bush. I can live with that, I don’t see it as a major issue anymore. I still support Perry, but I also support Arizona for taking a stand.

          • californiagold

            n/t

          • gekster

            just that some are agreeing.
            Words have meanings, and you don’t know how to implement them.

          • gekster

            just one agreeing.
            Words have meanings, something you don’t compreheend.

        • californiagold

          Good enough for illegals ?

          Perry opposes a wall, claiming it doesn’t work. Yet, in areas of the border where a wall/fence has recently been built, illegal immigration has been reduced dramatically. The problem is the smugglers will follow the path of least resistance – in this case, Texas.

          Let’s not try to sugarcoat Perry’s political reasoning for opposing strong enforcement at the border. Texas has a significant hispanic population, and as with GW Bush, Perry eased off tough illegal immigration policies in order to gain votes.

      • Doc Holliday

        I think Arizona leads, not Texas. The irony of the situation is, the more lax a state is on illegal immigration, the more lax they must become in the future. It is is like a guy hanging from the line of hot air balloon that breaks free from its tethers and begins to climb. The guy won’t let go of the rope because he is scared, but the longer he holds on, his fate becomes even more certain.

        Like I said in another post. The immigration debate is already over. If we were going to control the situation, we would have done it already. The horse has left the barn, we can argue when and how to close the gate, but it really doesn’t matter than much anymore.

        In the future, immigration patterns will be based on the economies in the USA and Mexico. Lately, Mexico has done quite well, and reverse immigration is actually occurring. People on both sides of the immigration issue are now just using it for political talking points, the time for a real decision has past.

        • Doc Holliday

          .

        • californiagold

          With a view like that, why not just open the border for all and get rid of border checkpoints altogether ?

          • Doc Holliday

            and why should I care?

          • californiagold

            …you don’t need to care at all about this issue. Far more important is what republican primary voters care about. And I’m willing to bet Perry’s opponents will raise the same issues I’ve raised here.

          • Doc Holliday

            I am actually stronger on illegal immigration than most here. I am a bit defeatist on the issue because I realize the tide already happened, and no one did a thing. How can we stem a tide that is passed?

            But I have a feeling you are just trolling. People like Gekster are my RS friends, I can debate them in good will. I don’t know what your game is, and I am skeptical. The fact that you went after me when I agreed with some of what you said was what we call, a “red flag”.

            I am only interested in talking with people of good faith, that is my criterion. I could care less if someone agrees with me, if he is discussing the issues in good faith. This site is infested with trolls right now, and I am skeptical until proven wrong.

  • californiagold

    I didn’t go after you, what I did was disagree with your opinion on immigration. By the way, I still think Perry is the best candidate of the current field. But unlike others, I look at the records of all candidates, even the popular ones.

    • Doc Holliday

      everyone is going after Perry. My issue is that we have to defeat Obama no matter what. I don’t mind a fair look at Perry. I have noticed that he has moved to the right while in office. Some may say that is convenience, but I say it is still a good thing.

      I said it twice before and will say it again, Perry was wrong with the Texas Dream Act. It was unfair and unjust. But I am not going to hold that against him forever, he can change, people can make mistakes.

      A realistic look at the race shows it is down to Perry and Romney. Certainly Perry is more my kind of conservative than is Romney. Would I take Romney as president today if it was a guaranteed thing? Hell yes I would. I want Obama out, he is a clear and present danger.

      • californiagold

        Defeating Obama in 2012 in the primary goal. But replacing him with a real conservative is just as important. Primary voters will have a chance to look over the republican candidates for the next six months and decide for themselves which candidate is best.

        Perry is getting much attention right now because he just announced and has yet to be vetted on the national stage. It’s far too early, at least for me, to endorse anyone. I’m looking forward to the debates to see which candidate shines.