« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Rick Perry is Amnesty for Illegals Waiting to Happen

By: romney4prez (Diary)  |  September 4th, 2011 at 12:33 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Rick Perry and Obama are twins on immigration. Romney knows as the global economy increases and the local economy shrinks it becomes more important to secure the border and curb illegal mmigration. 

PERRY IS AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS WAITING TO HAPPEN!! 

Perry was against the fence. 

Perry said that the immigration law in Arizona was too strong for Texas. 

Perry passed a version of the Dream Act in Texas that gives tuition breaks for children of illegals. 

PERRY USES THE SAME KOOKY LIBERAL LINE: 

“You can’t punish the children for something their parents did.” 

This fake liberal compassion will get you more debt and an unsecure border. It has nothing to do with punishing anyone, it’s about following the law. In these economic times, you don’t want to give illegals more incentive to come here. 

Mitt is the TRUE CONSERVATIVE!! 

Look at Mitt, Perry and Obama’s view on immigration and Obama and Perry are identical twins on this issue.

Perry is a Neo Conservative who think open borders and cheap labor are the way to go just like Bush and his Comprehensive Immigration Reform. 

SAY NO TO GEORGE W. PERRY!!!!

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Scope

    working on his landscaping on his property for decades, as well as his son hiring the same company. So is this another do as I say, don’t do as I do Romneyism?

    The point I have made about Perry’s opposition to a fence is the fact that the drug cartels have found other ways of sneaking into the country using underground tunnels. So what good would a fence do on land, when they are coming in from below? I’m sure you will have some good answer to that Romney4Pres.

  • KBDay

    If you research the US problem with border security, you’ll soon realize a fence isn’t the solution. Targeted fencing can be part of the solution, but the issue is so complex it would benefit all candidates to thoroughly research how the U.S. deals with foreign nationals, migrant workers and the completely overlooked refugee issue. For instance, at the moment, the United Nations and non-government organizations (who benefit from taxpayer dollars) set criteria for our refugee policy.

    On Perry’s stance as governor, that is an issue that possibly required him to approach things differently than he might as president.

    Gov. Perry will have to clearly spell out his policy. He did however ask for troops on the border.

    Every governor in the U.S. is at a disadvantage right now because of corruption within the so-called ‘immigration’ system that requires honest migrants and other guest workers or wannabe citizens to comply and wait their turn.

    Perry references border security on his campaign site within the greater issue of national security. I couldn’t find a specific plan on either Perry or Romney’s website regarding ‘immigration.’

    That may make sense because we don’t have an immigration problem. We have a federal bureaucracy problem whereby the law is disregarded, corrupt officials are given the power of a demi-god to hire their cronies and cottage industries have sprung up in transport and entitlement acquisition.

    I have received many emails from people within the system. The claims are appalling–look to Operation Fast and Furious as a small example.

    What I’d prefer to see every GOP candidate do is present a specific plan on how they would deal with CONGRESS to accomplish reform of traffic across all our borders–land, sea and air.

    Attacks on one another may be effective strategy but they tell a serious voter nothing about how the candidate would deal with the issue. best, KBD

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

      the border fence, as should any GOP nominee. After Bush41 lost due to his failure to honor the tax pledge, I will trust GOP nominees if they make promises as they know they will be held accountable.

      • acat

        And Perry has done quite a few things to put men and women on the border.

        Rangers now patrolling Falcon Lake, where pirates from the Mexican side have kidnapped and killed Americans just out enjoying the lake.

        Heard further that Perry is beefing up the Rangers and Texas National Guard with an eye on border enforcement.

        In short, unlike Bush ’41, Perry seems to understand that we need “rough men standing ready”… and is finding them and giving them their marching orders.

        Mew

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

          Does the White House have only a few areas around it fenced? Of course not. A fence deters simply by its presence. Open areas with no visible barrier INVITE attempts to cross. Thus, only having men ready to seize others invites violent confrontations. We need a fence on every inch of the border on which a fence can be constructed and men to patrol as well. Of course, you don’t need as many men if you have a fence and the number of seizures would be miniscule compared to the virtual cop-out Perry prefers lest he offend the sensibilities of liberals, most of whom live in fenced and armed camps that insulate them from the real world that We the People live in where illegals get thru and make our lives living hells.

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

          nt

          • acat

            I forget who said that …

            Mew

  • romney4prez

    First you don’t destroy the good to stop the bad. You expand on it. If some are turning to tunnesls, what does that have to do with the fence? Do them both. You can walk and chew gum at the same time.

    Romney and the landscaping company is silly. When I hire my landscapers, I didn’t ask to see the books or to go over employee records before they cut my grass. An illegal immigrant could be working for the company that cuts my grass that doesn’t mean I support illegal immigration.

    Whenever you hear a politician say:

    “It’s not about punishing the children for something the parents did.”

    You’re listening to a liberal or a Neo Con!!

    George W. Perry is Amnesty for Illegals Waiting to Happen!! It has to do with the vision for America.

    Mitt sees an America that doesn’t have to depend on cheap labor. This is why Neo Cons and liberals support these things. It’s because if you allow illegals to come here, you will lower wages and attractt companies in China or India to hire Americans for cheap.

    Everyone will have a job but you will need 2 or 3 of them to survive or be heavily subsidized by the Government.

    SAY NO TO GEORGE W. PERRY!!

    • Scope

      Obviously the company doing Romney’s landscaping was known to employ illegals, and after decades Romney never cared to check. You have a very weak argument when you say it’s OK if my guy didn’t care, and neither do I, but I’m going after Perry because he will bring amnesty, which Perry is on the record stating he is against. That’s fluffy dude.

      SAY NO TO BARACK ROMNEY Romney wrote the prototype to Obamacare, which can now be considered Romobamacare. No thanks. If I had to make a choice, I’d choose some illegals over Global RomneyGore Warming, and Romobamacare any day. Oh, and Ethanol Romney subsidies.

      • romney4prez

        When you give tuition breaks to children of illegal immigrants, that’s amnesty. You also give an incentive for more illegal immigration.

        Perry’s excuse:

        “You don’t punish the children for what their parents did.”

        More liberal nonsense. Nobody is trying to pubish anyone Perry just follow the law.

        Here’s Rick “Amnesty” Perry:

        And back in 2001, Perry signed the first-ever state DREAM Act to give in state tuition to illegal aliens. Just this last July, in the early primary state of New Hampshire, he defended his decision, blustering “To punish these young Texans [=illegal aliens] for their parents’ actions is not what America has always been about.” [Perry gives first NH interview, By John DiStaso, Manchester Union Leader, July 24, 2011]

        SAY NO TO GEORGE W. PERRY!!!

        • Xasteius

          a fence (as suggested by Gamecock), but it needs to be extremely tough.

          The condition I would suggest for illegals would be 20 years of active military service with an honorable discharge as a condition for citizenship. If they don’t, we send them to Mexico on the slowest transport we can find.

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

            Non-criminals could stay and be legal but NEVER VOTE unless they went home and got in line behind those already in line doing it the legal way.

        • acat

          First, Texas has no income tax. This is important because, to qualify for the Texas Dream Act, a student has to have lived inTexas, paying property tax (via landlord) and sales taxes, just like a legal immigrant or citizen.

          Second, the Texas Dream Act just changes the tuition rate charged from out-of-state to in-state, it does NOT give a “free ride”, unlike California’s version.

          Third, the Texas Dream Act requires the student to apply for citizenship.

          Fourth, the Texas Dream Act requires the student to have graduated from a Texas high school with grades sufficient to warrant admission.

          In short, Texas taxpayers who have the grades and are willing to become documented get a tuition break. This does not seem unreasonable to me.

          Mew

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

            and I have much less problem with state experiments than with a blanket McCain-Obama style amnesty.

          • acat

            I’ve gotten quite good at rattling off that and at the “Gardasil defense” because I judge they’re the hits on Perry that are most likely to be repeated by every squishy-middle type I know…

            I’ll dust off and practice my Romney defenses if needed after the debate.

            Mew

    • onemovoter

      Back during the 2008 time frame, Romney thought McCain’s proposal for amnesty was a good one.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAUS2JJib88&feature=player_embedded

      See the thing is Perry has lived on a border state all his life, He knows what the problems are and what works and doesn’t. I’ve read others who know the border of Texas and Mexico and know that a fence across the whole stretch isn’t possible, namely because of the Rio Grande. Perry does agree with fencing where practical like it has been done in Cali and Arizona to great effect. Perry said for Texas he’d rather have boots on the ground in combination with high tech detection gear. He is right when he says a fence would only slow them down, but if you have border agents standing there, it’s better than a fence.

      Perry also reiterated that you can’t have a border policy until you secure the border, which he would love to do.

      His policy on the Texas “dream” act would only apply to those who have to follow a long string of laws in order to get instate rates. Perry said that if they are willing to follow along a stringent set of laws and still wanted to pay for college, then they know they are serious about becoming productive US citizens. They still would have to get in line like everyone else, but at least he knew they were serious, unlike many other transitory illegals.

      I’d rather have someone practical like Perry than someone reactionary like Romney or yourself.

  • romney4prez

    This is what it comes down to:

    Rick Perry and Obama have the same vision for America and illegal immigration is the key.

    Neo Conservatives talk like Conservatives but sct like liberals. This is why they supported Bush.

    Rick Perry sees illegal immigration as a way to bring jobs to America. You bring in illegals which will lower wages but everyone have have 2 or 3 of these cheap labor jobs at the end of the day.

    Mitt Romney doesn’t think we have to depend on cheap labor and therefore he’s more like Jan Brewer from Arizona on illegal immigration because he understands the importance that illegal immigration will have as the global economy expands and the local economy shrinks.

    Perry said the Arizona law was “too tough.”

    SAY NO TO GEORGE W. PERRY!!

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      Romney’s positions on both sides of every issue. ‘Cause he’s held opposing positions on just about all of ‘em.

  • romney4prez

    HERE’S MITT ROMNEY’S VIEWS ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION FROM MITT ROMNEY CENTRAL:

    What are Mitt Romney’s proposals to stop illegal immigration?

    1. Securing the border is priority number one.

    2. Those who have come to the United States illegally should not be given amnesty or an easier path to citizenship over those already in line.

    3. An employer verification system must be implemented to ensure jobs are not given to illegal immigrants.

    4. Illegal immigrants should be required to return to their home country.

    5. Giving tuition breaks to the children of illegal immigrants needs to stop.
    Federal funding for cities who consider themselves sanctuary cities should be reduced.

    6. The United States needs to be made more appealing to legal immigrants.
    Ending illegal immigration only strengthens legal immigration.

    This is because Mitt understands how illegal immigration hurts the economy as the Global Economy expands.

    With Rick Perry, you get the fake liberal compassion that says:

    “YOU DON’T PUNISH THE CHILDREN FOR WHAT THEIR PARENTS DID.”

    This is liberal nonsense and nobody is punishing anyone Rick Perry, it’s called following the law.

    SAY NO TO GEORGE W. PERRY!!!

    • acat

      Could you please post where you’re obtaining this information?

      kthxbai

      Mew

    • aesthete

      about economics as you do about candidate advocacy.

  • westcoastpatriette

    than I am but at this point in time, I am suspending making sweeping conclusions–especially regarding Perry’s vision for how to solve this problem–due to so many factors that must be considered before we can move forward effectively.

    In my opinion, this issue has reached critical mass in terms of the problems that have resulted from years of neglect, political posturing and underestimating the effects of minimizing the seriousness of allowing our nations immigration laws to be snubbed and broken without consequences.

    What I have learned in the two years of research and following what is happening at the state and federal level is that the problem is solvable but not as long as we have the lawless ones in control of things.

    The people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo want us to believe our only choices are amnesty or amnesty and that simply is not true. We could very easily implement policies that would lead the illegals to self-deport and that is and always will be the direction I will push for.

    What I resent most is that even a lot of conservatives have fallen for the left’s rhetoric that we must feel sorry for the invaders and that it would be wrong to hold them accountable for their choices.

    We need to take a step back and remember that our immigration policies should be based upon what is best for America first . Anything else is stupid and self-destructive. And that is what I need to hear from any candidate that addresses this issue.

    • romney4prez

      And back in 2001, Perry signed the first-ever state DREAM Act to give in state tuition to illegal aliens. Just this last July, in the early primary state of New Hampshire, he defended his decision, blustering “To punish these young Texans [=illegal aliens] for their parents’ actions is not what America has always been about.” [Perry gives first NH interview, By John DiStaso, Manchester Union Leader, July 24, 2011]

      It’s the same fake liberal compassion. Nobody is trying to punish anyone, jit’s about the law Rick Perry.

      SAY NO TO GEORGE W. PERRY!!!

      • westcoastpatriette

        does not have the power to grant amnesty in the fullest sense of the word as you are implying. I share your revulsion toward any kind of Dream Act but to characterize it as amnesty is inaccurate. He is doing what so many other states are doing in the absence of comprehensive enforcement emanating from the feds and that is taking a stop-gap measure that seems fair in a short-sighted way.

        I guess what I am saying to you is it is obvious that you are convinced that you know exactly how Perry intends to deal with the problem as President and because of the Texas Dream Act, you are extrapolating that he will favor giving amnesty and a pathway to citizenship to the millions who are here now. I have never heard Perry say that as I do not think he is that stupid.

        In that regard, you have not convinced me that Perry has laid out his complete plan for how he will deal with the problem. In the meantime, I am waiting to see what he will say as I know he will be forced to lay it all out in the very near future.

        • acat

          than the other Governors in terms of State-based enforcement.

          An aquaintance in Texas sent me this:

          It’s interesting what you say here. Because driving into work this morning they were announcing on KLBJ-AM that there is going to be an expansion with the Texas State Guard to beyond just having civil affairs units. Also the DPS (state troopers & the Rangers) were setting up a marine division responsible for just patrolling along the Rio Grande.

          This sounds, to me, like Texas is putting their own treasure on the (border)line, and I’d take it as an indication of what President Perry would want to see…

          Mew

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    …you’re doing it wrong. Just sayin’

    • onemovoter

      This ‘romney4prez’ person is as bad as the Paulbots or Palinistas that spout name calling and conspiracy theories without context.

      I continually cringe when I see people like this. Makes me want to yell…. “GET A BRAIN and USE IT!”

      • pttx333

        ,,

      • http://thethinkingvoter.blogspot.com abierubin

        At this site every supporter of a different candidate is slammed besides for Perryists.

        Every candidate has lunatics which support them and Romney4prez may fall into that category.

        However, often people writing diaries and comments discuss valid issues and carry reasonable discussions yet are still slammed as lunatics and extremists only because they support a candidate other than Perry.

        • acat

          Many of the supposed supporters of other candidates, such as romney4prez in this case, are not actually so much “supporters” as “support-peelers” – that is they exist merely to peel off support from a potential threat to their candidate. Again, in this case, romney4prez must reduce Perry to preserve Romney’s “inevitability”.

          Your own diary here, by the way was a very good refutation of the inevitability of Romney, for which I again thank you.

          When you see someone “slamming those who support candidates other than Perry” (to paraphrase) please ask questions to determine what’s going on. We’ll all learn at least a little more, eh?

          Mew

    • pttx333

      going about it all wrong. If one wishes to support their candidate, fine – but do not slam the other candidates IN YOUR OWN PARTY to make your point(s) or slam those who support another candidate. The only thing that happens is the person on the receiving end of a tirade doesn’t hear another word you say after it begins. Not only that, the wild-eyed supporters of any candidate turn off those who might have listened otherwise. Learn to disagree without being disagreeable.

      • acat

        Folks who show up with a candidate-specific or issue-specific handle, who seem to only have one thing to say ..

        I’m not sure if they’re paid for by the candidates or part of a false-flag operation or some combination, but .. they almost never do advocacy the way it should be done.

        Mew

        • pttx333

          borrow it from time-to-time if you don’t mind.

          You know, I had a thought – could it be that r4p is really not a Romney supporter? He certainly sounds like a Paul loon with the neo-con bit and the continuous pounding away. The Paul loons would run over someone with a bulldozer and never blink an eye. I just get the feeling that he is flying under false flags – don’t know why, I just feel that is the case. Either way, he is delusional and very offensive.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    We need to distinguish a few things:
    It is CORRECT that Perry signed instate tuition for illegal immigrants. That is not the same as the Federal DREAM Act, which would legalize and make such illegal aliens citizens. Nor is it ‘amnesty’.

    Perry also backed off supporting AZ law, making an argument that he didnt want the lawsuits (although he’s been willing to sue the Feds over EPA and a few other items). In that and a few other respects, he is weak on immigration. At the same time, back in 2005, Romney was quite a bit softer on immigration than he is sounding now.

    Full-blown amnesty would be DOA in any Republican Congress. The real risk we face now is an administration that is doing back-door amnesty via selective / non-enforcement.

    We need to get our candidates on the record against the Obama selective enforcement / administrative amnesty.

    • romney4prez

      Liberals and Neo Cons will always try to hide what they’re doing because they think people are idiots.

      Giving in state tuition breaks to illegal aliens is amnesty and it’s an incentive for more illegals to come here. It’s no different than sanctuary cities. You’re giving them amnesty and the green light to make a bee line to the states. Because you think people are stupid, you think if it doesn’t fit the technical term of amnesty people will accept. Sadly some people do accept the liberal/Neo Con nonsense.

      Perry like the liberals and other Neo Cons think that illegal immigration will help with jobs. This is because wages will be lowered and this will be attractive to companies in China, India and throughout the world. It’s basically turning America into a thirld world country of cheap labor and big government.

      In contrast, Romney is much tougher on illegal immigration because he doesn’t think we need cheap labor in order to survive.

      Rick Perry

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

        Site admin hat firmly on: You *will* clarify what you mean by “Neo Cons” before you continue posting.

        Let me be clear: Your posting rights are in jeopardy.

        • Scope

          When I see anyone using the term neo-con I cringe. It has been used widely as a slur against particular Republicans, and in many cases has an anti-semitic meaning.

        • romney4prez

          Of course you want to cancel my posting rights because you don’t want to hear the truth.

          Neoconservatism in the United States is a branch of American conservatism that is most known for its advocacy of using American economic and military power to topple American enemies and promote liberal democracy in other countries. The movement emerged during the early 1970s among Democrats who disagreed with the party’s growing opposition to the Vietnam War and had become skeptical of the Great Society’s welfare programs. Although neoconservatives generally endorse free-market economics, they often believe cultural and moral issues to be more significant, and so have tended to be less thoroughgoing in opposition to government intervention in society than more traditionally conservative and libertarian members of the Republican Party.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

          Rick Perry or Al Gores old campaign manager, is a Neo Con and so was George W. Bush. This is why Perry and Bush take weak stands on immigration. This is why Bush cut taxes but gave out only 12 vetos and did nothing to control spending.

          Neoconservatives are liberals in conservative clothing.

          • izoneguy

            Have never been here.
            They don’t know what they are talking about and
            take most of their talking points from the liberal
            establishment types.
            Romney is clearly the establishment darling.
            The establishment is deathly afraid of Perry
            because he will stop the gravy train.

          • romney4prez

            Rick Perry is all about the gravy train. He’s a 27 year politician who loves Government. He’s been subsidized by government for 27 years and for many of those years he was an Al Gore democrat.

            Romney worked with companies like Staples and Dominos Pizza. Billion dollar companies that employ thousands of people while the taxpayer in Texas was buying Rick Perry’s cowboy boots and everything else.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            And so is Romney. He first ran against Kennedy and squashed in ’94. He’s been on a political bandwagon personally for over 20 years and he comes from a political family. In addition, Romney’s had more positions on any ONE issue than Perry has had on all of ‘em.

            If you’re going to go after Perry for supporting Gore, get ready to defend Romney’s pro-choice positions in the early 90′s.

            Jerk.

          • izoneguy

            We have posted dozens of diaries about Perry.
            It is apparent that you have not read any of them.

            I will leave you with this quote from Rick:

            “My father was a lifelong democrat, I never saw a Republican
            until I was 24 years old.”

            Perry made the conversation earlier in his life than
            Reagan did.

            I respect Romney’s corporate carreer. Let’s not forget
            that Romney wanted to be a politician more than a corporate guy.
            He ran and lost a Senate race and then could not even beat
            McCain in 2008. He had a blah record as Gov. of Mass.
            but he did deliver RomneyCare – another healthcare disaster.

            Rick Perry is a winner and has the balls to take Obama head ON.

          • perry4prez

            It is very silly to complain about “27 year politicians”. Would you rather have someone like Obama come in, who has to learn on the job? The question is whether Perry used those 27 years to promote conservative goals or not, and on that the answer is clear.

          • GregInFla

            Anyone who supports forcing mercury-laden CFL’s and making me buy a $1200 motor for my pool (instead of $300 one) because it will save me money (mandated by 2008 Energy Act, diary forthcoming after anger subsides) is not on my “good” list. AGW is a myth and a scheme.

          • Bill S

            Anyone who was once a Democrat is a neoconservative, including our own Moe Lane.

            You’re on thin ice here, Skippy. You may want to ponder what you post very carefully from here on out.

      • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

        Gotta laugh that a “romney4prez” guy is dissing “neo-cons” in a Perry attack.

        As Perry would say … “THAT DOG WON’T HUNT.”

        Perry a neo-con now?!? you dont like the business lobby, but are for romney?!? head is spinning. Moreover, your anti-Perry rhetoric is going way over the top on this subject.

        No, Perry is NOT for amnesty. Amnesty means giving illegal aliens a path to citizienship and/or legal status ahead of legal immigrants. And yes, Perry is wrong to be for instate tuition for illegals, but he is. Beyond that, tthere are not much in the way of differences between Romney and Perry on immigration. Perry, however, lives in a border state and a state that is growing more Hispanic. Both have influenced his understanding and positions on the border and immigration.

        Failing to distinguish between the different aspects of this issue, and your ‘neo-con’ namecalling, makes your comment here intelligible and/or wrong.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    You are of precisely the same genetic ilk as the Ron Paul supporters and the Palinbots. Rational thought has never formed in your head.

    It is possible to make a reasonable case for Romney (we’ve not seen one here because real Romney supporters don’t post on conservative sites). It is possible to make a reasonable case for Palin (azaeroprof has done it a number of times). It is not possible to make any case for Paul that doesn’t include checking him into a mental hospital.

    You couldn’t make a rational case for eating lunch. You are ignorant of Romney’s history, you don’t understand the issues you waste bandwidth on, you have no clue what most of the words you toss in your screeds even mean (see “Neo Con”). You are, arguably, the worst poster ever to support a candidate at Redstate.

    You won’t be missed when Neil gets done with you. Your memory will be accompanied by laughter.

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      I dont support Ron Paul but you COULD make the case for him by pointing out that he – and his Austrian economics doom-n-gloom gold-bug friends, like Peter Schiff etc – actually predicted the meltdown, predicted we couldnt avoid recession, and predicted correctly everything that followed. That would make a credible case that Rep Paul gets the economy. but Ron Paul’s biggest weakness is his supporters, and they wont make that case, they’d rather blow it with wacko statements that turn non-nutcases off.

      “You [Romney4prez] are, arguably, the worst poster ever to support a candidate at Redstate.”

      There is definitely the case to be made that Perry – whom I support – is weak on illegal immigration a la GWB, and Romney would be better in some way. But Romney4Prez has blown it with false over-the-top claims. We are all just a google away from fact-checking anything, so BS never goes over well.

      Romney4prez, if Trump was running your operation he’d say ‘youre fired’.

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        If, big if, he actually has any understanding of economics, any case that he “gets it” would be destroyed because if he did, he actually did nothing about it as a US Congressman. The guy is a nutcase who’s never actually accomplished anything.

        • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

          Becker, that actually is my biggest bone to pick with Rep Paul: He hasnt actually DONE anything that seriously advanced conservative or limited government agenda.
          Not a team player. Not an introducer or pusher of good bills. Not pushed an alternative budget, etc. Talks the talk but not very effective.

          Yes he has been ‘right’ on the crisis, but has failed to lay out a coherent and sensible economic plan to fix it.
          I was trying to make the case for him that isn’t often made, but again I’m not a supporter.

          • acat

            I’m questioning just how far from the tree the Senator from Kentucky’s apple landed.

            Mew

          • Scope

            away from the tree? Long before he ran for the Senate seat, he was out campaigning for his dad’s 08 campaign. Wouldn’t you have to agree with that candidate, father or not, in order to make a good case for said candidate on the campaign trail? He is also out again, as the dutiful son, campaigning for his dad. Again, would he actually go against his dad’s positions if asked by someone at the rally’s or campaign stops, and say well I don’t agree with him on this or that. Can you really support someone fully if you claim to have very different ideas on issues?

            Within a few months of becoming a new Senator, it seemed that Rand wanted to go it alone with writing his ideas of spending cuts. He promised another singly authored document on entitlement reforms if I’m not mistaken, but I don’t think that ever came out, but I may have missed it. No, team player, no. I’ll write my own plans thank you very much. But, it is unpatriotic or something if you go against Rand Paul because he is so different from good old dad. Personally I think Rand is not on the up and up. Ohhh, bad me, bad me.

          • acat

            but not indefinitely, and not on any of the really kook stuff. George W. Bush campaigned for George H.W. Bush, after all, and I’m pretty sure Jeb got an assist or vice versa.

            My concern – and your last paragraph tags it nicely – is that Rand does not seem to be working to form consensus in the greatest (or at least, one of the most difficult to get into) debating society in the world… and unlike the House, it’ll become painfully obvious very quickly if Rand can’t work with others – especially DeMint’s conservatives.

            Mew

          • Scope

            The Bushies dad, and older son have a problem with Perry. Jeb joins the fray, and joins the we are all against Perry clan. Where is individual think there? It’s a family thing because apparently there were animosities between brother W, so all gang up. Sad to hear Cheney today join the fray also, at least somewhat, means clan think to me. He likes Mitt!!!

            As to the Bush’s campaigning for each other, were any of them trying to distance themselves from one or the other’s policies? I don’t think they were. They were all on the same page. On the other hand…..

  • izoneguy

    Romney will do nothing on illegal immigration.
    He does not understand the problem.
    He will continue to blame the governors of the border
    states just as Obama is doing.

    A federal border is the responsibility of the federal government.

    The feds protect illegals in the workplace and mandate that the states
    provide medical care.

    Romney will actually expand healthcare for illegals because he
    will not repeal ObamaCare. He says he will but his that nasty
    habit of flip-flopping.

  • Scope
    • westcoastpatriette

      the other thing to keep in mind is that this issue is evolving as we speak as many cases are pending or winding their way through the courts. States are taking various steps that they feel do not conflict with federal law and they are each being challenged.

      This is new territory for everyone as it really is unclear how much states can act alone to protect their citizens from the various problems stemming from illegal immigration. That is one reason why it is foolish to come to any solid conclusions such as r4p is doing regarding Perry’s positions.

      • Scope

        Perry said that the laws passed by AZ were not appropriate for Texas. People went berzerk.

        Everyone knows that districts, towns, localities are cutting back on their police officers, because of budget constraints. Of course the law enforcement goes first over other non-essential services, but that’s a whole different story. I have no doubt that Texas localities are having the same outcome. Perry clearly said that he was against turning local police officers into immigration officers, and taking them away from their main duties of fighting crime, as those efforts would surely be constrained, if not ignored, especially with the large numbers of illegals in those border states.

        According to the last passed comprehensive immigration laws, the 287d program was designed to train some law enforcement officials in the extra capacity of immigration (at their own local expense), which was proving to be successful. Obama stripped the money from that program, and turned it into the Secure Communities Act, which tracks only those that have been arrested.

        AZ is still fighting the Obama DOJ lawsuits against the laws passed in AZ, and there is another souther state that passed strong immigration laws as well, and the Obama DOJ is now fighting them as well. The DOJ argument is that it is a federal issue, even though the feds are against upholding the laws on the books. Yes, you are so correct that these new laws are finding their way through the court system, not with much success as far as AZ at least, because of the heavy infiltration on the court system with activist judges.

        Perry has been long aware that Obama does not like Texas, or anything about it, or it’s governor, or it’s legislature. Obama would have slammed Texas even more so than he already has done, had they passed strong illegal immigration laws, even if that was the direction Perry pushed hard for.

        New territory is an understatement. Hopefully by the time Obama and Holder are gone, sooner rather than later, we will be able to finally get some order on the issue within the federal government, which is where it does belong. I believe that Perry may not be perfect on this issue, but it will be taken over by the feds under his watch, which is where it belongs.

        • acat

          was to standardize a procedure that almost every department in the State of Arizona already followed….

          I’m not sure whether Texas has a patchwork of policies similar to Arizona pre-SB1070, but .. I’ll give Perry the benefit of the doubt and guess that he’s waiting to see how Arizona fares before asking the Texas Legislature for a similar bill.

          Mew

          • westcoastpatriette

            for Arizona that some how got buried or missed but it is very significant with respect to the Courts view of exactly what states may do.

            This one was different from SB1070 and stemmed from legislation that was passed in Az. in 2007 making it mandatory for all employers in Az to use E-Verify. The bill also carried a penalty to revoke an employers business license if they were caught not using the system or intentionally hiring illegals.

            In May of this year, the Supremes upheld the law and this is why there is a sudden push to pass a national E-Verify law because the business community realizes that they are losing the argument and would rather have all the states have to abide by the same rules instead each state having their own laws.

            So, as I stated earlier, there is too much going on and the problem is too complex to try and pigeon-hole or label someone like Perry one way or the other at this stage of the game.

          • acat

            As to what it explains, well this diary for one, and this one.

            I guessed, at the time, that these were trial balloons … although they look a little like gekster took ‘em to the shooting range by the time we were done.

            Mew

  • aesthete

    …

  • poorredman

    discussing the reality of what it would take to do it, including a significant use of Eminent Domain. Because of the terrain, which includes large sections of Rio Grande, a fence would have to be built inland from the actual border. You are then talking about splitting private ranches and properties. Not saying that it wouldn’t be one of the very few instances when ED has a legitimate use, but it’s not as easy of an issue to deal with that some portray.

    It’s also funny how plenty of people want to bash Perry for his proposal of the Trans-Texas Corridor which would have required lots of ED, but then think throwing up a fence is no big deal that wouldn’t also require the use of ED, private construction companies, and since we are broke as a nation, the sale of bonds (to most likely foreign nations) to fund it. Sure the fence is a national security issue, but the free flow of commerce is also important to not only our economic freedom but also some sense of stability in Mexico.

    • Scope

      The TTC issue is one that Perry took a beating for especially with respect to the eminent domain issue. Yup, so many threw him under the bus for the state wanting to take their land, with some that hold personal property rights above all else. Excellent point on the ED issue. I also appreciate bringing up the issue of cost, most especially when many are screaming to cut spending, cut spending. I wonder if those wanting to almost strip the budget would agree to the high amount of money in order to build the fence. Thank you for an excellent perspective.

  • izoneguy

    Romney’s Tea Party Outreach Met With Skepticism

    Romney told Foster’s Daily Democrat in New Hampshire he thinks many Tea Partiers would support his bid.
    “The Tea Party isn’t a diversion from mainstream Republican thought,” Romney said. “It is within mainstream Republican thought. And I want to appeal to the Tea Party voters.”
    The push comes as Romney’s front-runner status slips, following the entry of Texas Gov. Rick Perry into the race. The latest Fox News poll showed Perry leading the field with 26 percent, and Romney in second place with 18 percent.
    Democrats have picked up on the friction among Tea Partiers over Romney’s outreach.
    Bill Burton, a former White House spokesman who now works at a pro-Democrat fundraising group, wrote in a memo over the weekend that Romney’s Tea Party events mark a “sudden shift” for the ex-governor. “Tea Party members have already trashed Romney’s pandering,” he wrote.
    FreedomWorks media coordinator Jackie Bodnar said the group is not trying to be disrespectful of Romney’s speech Sunday. She described it as a “peaceful” demonstration, but said Tea Partiers are just trying to have their voices heard after getting a “non-existent” response from Romney in the past.

  • KBDay

    Quite a few of us used to be Democrats, especially many of us in the South. I came to conservatism because of William Buckley and Ronald Reagan. I don’t see where a former Dem affiliation is a deal killer. I consider Reagan the best president in modern times.

    As for neocons, I don’t consider myself one of those either.

    Why would someone soliciting support for a candidate sling mud instead of touting his or her own candidate’s strengths?

    For what it’s worth, I supported Romney in 2008.

  • acat

    Followup question.

    If personnel is policy, then why is Bob Kjellander a problem for Romney?

    Mew

  • bk

    Your argument is that agreeing with any piece of a policy means you agree with the whole policy.

    ROMNEY IS OBAMACARE WAITING TO HAPPEN!!

    If you are going to pull one piece of what Perry said and extrapolate it into something he did NOT say, then you have to agree that Romneycare = Obamacare, right?

  • barleycorn

    The fact that the Romney Campaign has apparently decided that illegal immigration is Rick Perry’s Achilles heel is highly revealing.

    It is roughly analogous to a candidate from Kansas touting his knowledge of surfing while running against a candidate from California, .

    While Perry may not dot every “i” on illegal immigration in precisely the way many conservatives would want, to call him soft on illegal immigration is patently absurd.

    Furthermore, as important as illegal immigration is, it won’t be front and center in the minds of the American voting public in 2012 but even if it was, Rick Perry wins that match-up with ease against Barack “Don’t Deport Criminals” Obama.

    Finally, your last line is distasteful and shows your true colors. No matter the problems conservatives had with George W. Bush, he is an honorable man who served his country well and doesn’t deserve to have his name used in scorn by those in his own party.

  • gunslingr45

    Really? You would have better luck selling the “Bush brought down the towers story.”

  • KBDay

    I would add that Perry did stand up to more than 90 foreign nations and two US presidents on the matter of carrying out the death sentence for foreign nationals. Ted Cruz (a candidate for the US Senate) in Texas wrote a very articulate opinion on *Medellin vs. Texas.*

    Few Americans realized a critical tenet of US sovereignty hung in the balance. Cruz and Perry certainly went the distance in that regard.