« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Rick Perry Is Right on In-State Tuition for Immigrants in Texas

A Texas law supported by Republican presidential candidate and Texas Governor Rick Perry to provide in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants when they attend college has gotten a lot of attention recently. It was the primary focus of several heated exchanges at last night’s debate and was widely criticized on Twitter as well, but Perry’s opponents and the media are giving an inaccurate picture of the law and its effects.

First of all, here’s a review of what the law actually entails.

Texas law permits a child who has lived in the state of Texas for at least three years and graduated from a state high school to qualify for in-state tuition at a Texas college or university, on the condition that the child agrees to pursue full citizenship.

Now let’s look at how many students qualified under this rule.

According to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, in FY2010, 16,476 students qualified for in-state tuition under TEC 54.052(a)(3), the Texas statue governing this program. That number represents only one percent of total enrollment in Texas public universities; community, technical, and state colleges; and public health-related institutions.

Only one-percent. One-percent. The likes of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and others would have you believe it was a program run amok where these students were defrauding a system, unfairly taking advantage of this status, and ruining higher education for every other Texan. In a state with more than a million students in public institutions of higher learning, 16,476 students is a drop in the bucket.

Despite what you may be lead to believe, this was not a highly partisan bill that narrowly squeaked by on a tight party-line vote in the Texas legislature. In fact, only four legislators voted against the measure. The national media, and those politicians from outside the state of Texas may be quick to criticize this law and label it as extremist, but in reality it’s not.

This program makes a difference by offering these kids a helping hand to a quality education they may not receive otherwise. It does not destroy the ability of other Texas to get into school. In the end, it doesn’t even make a significant impact on the budgets of these colleges and universities. For instance, the Permanent University Fund that supports the flagship universities in Texas gets a substantial portion of its money from oil. They own an immense amount of land in West Texas and that land happens to be rich in black gold, pumping reliable dollars into the coffers of these schools. Tuition only makes up about a quarter of their overall funding.

These students have lived in Texas, some the required three years, some nearly their entire lives. As part of this program students must have graduated from a Texas high school, most likely a public one, paid for in part by the state. Shouldn’t they have the chance to receive the same services at the rate that other students who graduated from a Texas high school do?

These children should not be punished for the illegal acts of their parents. Many families risk life and limb to get to America so their children can have the opportunity to attend college and achieve the American dream.

It may not be true in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, or Minnesota, but in Texas there are a high number of Hispanic immigrants, some of whom are illegal. The means by which they’re allowed to slip past a border all but neglected by the federal government is for another conversation, but the fact remains that they are here and serve as valued members of the community, and are an integral part of the Texas culture. Hispanics are not political pawns to be thrown around by candidates seeking to score cheap political points by demagoguing an entire race.

Besides the fact that Republicans will be shut out of power for ages to come if they alienate Hispanics, it’s entirely inappropriate and un-American to punish the children of immigrants who may have fled their dysfunctional, failing, or dangerous homeland for a better life here in America. These are students who only get this in-state tuition rate if they commit to becoming legal citizens. Their tuition isn’t waived altogether, it’s just provided at the rate that every other Texas resident pays.

Now I’m not lobbying for blanket amnesty, and neither was Rick Perry – he’s on record opposing the federal DREAM Act – but the picture of this legislation painted by his opponents in this election is entirely inaccurate. I’m sure someone from the Romney camp will read this and use his favorite line these days, “nice try,” but the statistics show this for what it truly is, a program that does not punish these students, these future citizens, whose parents came to this country illegally. Instead it helps them become educated, productive citizens of these United States.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.

COMMENTS

  • http://www.libertygirlusa.com libertygirlusa

    I don’t think I can go as far as to say that I agree with Perry on this issue, but there is a whole lot more than what meets the eye. Thanks for pointing those out to us.

    • Doc Holliday

      you won’t here about those that joined the Texas Army National Guard to get in state tuition but ended up dead in Iraq. Perry is wrong, and we are lying if we claim he is right.

      • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

        But you beat me to it. I have to agree with many others here, Perry is wrong on this point.

        • victoria_29

          Bunch of phony hypocrites is what I see here. Guess y’all do not believe in state’s rights or the Constitution when doesn’t agree with you huh. This was a Texas issue in 2001-love how everyone FORGETS to mention that. It is NOT anyone else’s business what Texas choose to do to deal with our illegal aliens. We have the largest majority BY FAR of illegals. In case you didn’t listen last night the MAJORITY BY FAR bi-partisans supported this Law. Perry Could NOT have stopped it if he wanted to. Hell I respect him for not using that argument. He could VERY VERY easily say I couldn’t veto the bill & be telling the truth. It passed with 99.6% of our legislature SUPPORTING it.

          • chipbennett

            No one (as far as I can tell) is arguing that Texas didn’t have the Constitutional right to pass the law. Can you please try to see past that specious issue?

            What matters at this point is that the man who as governor of Texas signed the bill into law now wants to be President of the United States, and his actions as governor inform regarding his potential actions as President.

            Also: yes, Perry could have vetoed the bill, thus requiring the legislature to override his veto. That’s how checks and balances work. The bill didn’t become law simply because it passed the legislature with a super-majority. It still required the Governor’s signature. Thus, Perry absolutely could have vetoed it.

          • GregInFla

            Perry’s actions in appealing for Feds to enforce immigration laws, and his placement of Texas Rangers units on the border to assist US BP in enforcing the border? What is wrong with those actions?

          • chipbennett

            …and I’m all in favor of those actions. But I’m not in favor of a federal DREAM act.

            Just as Perry’s actions inform with respect to enforcement of all those other, federal illegal immigration laws, so also do his actions inform with respect to his willingness to support a federal DREAM act.

            I don’t think it unreasonable to bring up the issue, nor do I think that merely questioning his willingness to support passage of a federal DREAM act in any way whatsoever implies an assertion that Perry wouldn’t enforce existing laws, or that he wouldn’t support additional laws.

          • GregInFla

            This is news to me.

          • gekster

            And he has never given an inclination to impose a federal dream act.

            9-21-2011
            from:
            http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/governor-favors-tuition-breaks-for-illegal-students-at-home-but-not-amnesty–20110921

            excerpt:
            At a press conference here on Wednesday, Perry said he would not support the federal DREAM Act, even though he signed a Texas version into law in 2001.

            ?I think that the federal DREAM act is just amnesty and I?m not for amnesty,? Perry said.

          • GregInFla

            I really cannot figure out where some folks here get their information.

          • gekster

            I can’t see why people can’t look this stuff for themselves.
            I mean, it is obvious they have the same interwebbythingy I do.

            (and friends use a small g)

      • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

        But you beat me to it. I have to agree with many others here, Perry is wrong on this point.

  • Doc Holliday

    illegal aliens are not legally allowed to pursue citizenship, they can’t even get a green card. Someone is blowing some serious smoke, and I think it is Rick “the crappy debater” Perry.

    • nepanyrush

      Also creates a strong incentive to cross the border. The author of this post makes this very same point when he states: “Many families risk life and limb to get to America so their children can have the opportunity to attend college and achieve the American dream.”

      What about the Mexican citizen who feels like an idiot for paying full tuition for his kid to go to college in the United States when the family can cross the border and save $100,000.

      • nepanyrush

        nt

      • victoria_29

        It is not an incentive to cross the border, in case you didn’t research it requires residency of 3 years & graduated from a Texas high school.

        • chipbennett

          Just because the benefit comes with strings attached doesn’t cause it not to be an incentive.

          Pray tell: has illegal immigration rate increased, decreased, or remained the same since the passage of the law?

  • dio55

    And he told 100% of us we dont have a heart. Now i think what other strange stuff can we expect from him as president. Thats what it all boils down to

    • renl57

      Perry actually suggested that the other candidates–as well as those in the GOP base–who have problems with his immigration policy “lack a heart.”

      I expect that kind of thing from Nancy Pelosi. We shouldn’t accept it from a self-described conservative.

      He needs to apologize for that remark forthwith. It’s not going over well with a lot of conservatives.

      • http://www.manerlittle.com Jonathan Crumly

        That is the “heart” of the problem – I thought conservatives based policy decisions on thinking through the implications of the policy. Does this policy conform to the US Constitution? Does this policy conform to the State Constitution? “Compassionate Conservatisim” led to Carl Rovian monstrosities like No Child Left Behind and the Medicaid prescription drug plan.

        I want someone who can articulate and defend conservative principles of limited government. Not someone who caves to emotional appeals when the heat gets turned up on an unwise decision. Why couldn’t he articluate the benefits of this law without Alinskying anyone who disagrees with him?

        I genuinely liked Perry before last night. I gave to his campaign when he announced. Right now, I want a refund. All that said, if Perry becomes the nominee, I’m all in for him because the alternative is far too catstrophic to my children & future grandchildren.

  • rightwingscottie

    The recent trend in immigration enforcement is against employers who hire illegals. Many people agree with that stance. Aren’t we training them for jobs that it is illegal for them to hold?

    • florajo

      What does Perry think an illegal is going to do after receiving a Masters degree? Roof houses? Open an accounting office? Go home? I don’t know what the unspoken endgame is for Perry. Wouldn’t it have to be amnesty?

      • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

        Amnesty is the only possible end-game here.

      • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

        Amnesty is the only possible end-game here.

        • msbs05

          I think, but not positive, that after recieving degree the illegal student is allowed to apply for H1 visa, given to those with college degrees to work in needed areas. From there the visa holder can apply for naturalization. I believe that is the path discussed by Perry. Of course, if Obama stays in office there wont be any jobs in any field, so I guess it may become useless debate

  • tyman

    Brad, I had a discussion about this with my wife last night after the debate (of which we watched very little).

    There are a lot of people that don’t understand about the in-state tuition…the Fox post debate focus group acted like it was a freebie program (they were a bunch of dufuses anyway). Texas does NOT have an income tax, so unless illegals don’t buy things, they pay into the tuition program through the state sales tax.

    I doubt there are illegal aliens who come here thinking they will get a free education for their children, as Santorum, Romney and others have suggested (I wonder if Romney thinks Romneycare would be a magnet for people to move to Massachusetts). I don’t like the idea of illegals coming here and breaking laws, but I think the facts show that most are simply looking to build a better life; considering the state of Mexico right now, I don’t blame them.

    It may have been better said than Perry put it, but the fact remains that by making productive American CITIZENS is far better than a state that has to keep paying for illegals on wellfare (as mandated by a Federal gov’t. that won’t do their job). And, I suspect it may be less expensive.

    If the boo birds would put themselves in Perry’s shoes and see what he sees in terms of the Hispanic vote, they might understand. Republicans/ Conservatives have lost the African American vote. As Rush said the other day, we CANNOT afford to lose the Hispanic vote, or Texas (we’ve lost California and New York). If Perry vetoed that bill, even though it would have been passed by a veto proof legislature, he would have outraged a huge part of the Texas electorate.

    I keep saying this over and over: until the Feds do their part, the states have their hands tied. Perry has even said that he would NOT do this on the Federal level, and I believe him.

    • Doc Holliday

      just explain their path or admit Perry is lying. It can only be one or the other, either illegals who attend college are granted citizenship or they are not. Last I heard, they are not.

    • chipbennett

      Perry has even said that he would NOT do this on the Federal level, and I believe him.

      So, when Perry becomes POTUS, he will have a cardio-ectemy, and will suddenly become heartless just like the rest of us who oppose the law?

      I guess we’re hoping for him to have a change of heart?

      • acat

        Unlike Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, etc. etc. .. ?

        The fallacy in your argument, chipbennett, is that Perry can’t currently do that without asking Texans to pay for border enforcement twice over; first, the Federal taxes they’re already paying (but are getting nothing for… thanks, ICE!) and second for a Texas-ICE to duplicate the job.

        Oh, and on top of that, based on Arizona’s experience, a Federal lawsuit against the State of Texas… where Texas citizens would be paying the lawyers and the whole mess wouldn’t be decided for years if then.

        Mew

        • westcoastpatriette

          even though I dislike the Texas law and think, in terms of the bigger picture it was a mistake, you have the best arguments in defense of Perry’s support for it of anyone at RS.

          You are able to defend it without denying all the other crap that contributed to our current demise in a way that calms the nerves.

          Perry should hire you to coach him until he is elected.

          • acat

            Perry’s action should never have been necessary.

            The only other action I think Perry could have taken would have been to sue the Federal government for breech of responsibility, but .. just the question of who would have standing to bring the suit is a kettle of angry vipers… and if y’all thought the backlash regarding Arizona’s SB1070 was a nightmare…

            Mew

        • chipbennett

          …your argument addresses my comment. I’ve made other points in other comments; it appears that your comment mostly attempts to argue those, rather than the point I attempted to make in this comment.

          My point was that if Perry supported the bill at the State level, I see no reason, based on the nature of his support for the law, that he would suddenly have a change of, er, heart, at the federal level.

          He enthusiastically, passionately supported the law when he signed it, and he remains resolute in that support, by all appearances. he believes it is morally the right thing to do; therefore, I can only conclude that he would support that same moral imperative as President.

          • http://applescorneroftheorchard.blogspot.com/ Pomme

            was for the Texans solution to the lack of federals enforcing the laws.

            I don’t see how acat didn’t answer your question. He’d enforce the law. I see no reason to doubt him on that.

          • chipbennett

            …Perry’s inclination to enforce laws on the books, but rather his inclination to support a federal DREAM act.

            Nowhere in my comment have I even broached the subject of Perry’s inclination to enforce laws – immigration-related or otherwise – already on the books. So, no: I don’t see how his comment had anything whatsoever to do with mine.

          • acat

            that have the Texas Rangers setting up a (brownwater) Naval unit to patrol the Rio Grande and Falcon Lake?

            That’s enforcement of the border by just about anyone’s book, right?

            In short, in the tuition case, Perry enthusiastically supported making lemonade when handed lemons. You appear to be arguing that he’ll not enforce the border to ensure the supply of lemons continues. I disagree.

            Mew

          • chipbennett

            …with my comment. I did not comment on Perry’s inclination to enforce laws.

            I was addressing the question of the likelihood that Perry would support a federal DREAM act. I’ve never questioned Perry’s inclination to enforce laws already on the books, or even the likelihood that Perry would support other illegal immigration-related federal laws. Thus, that entire line of argumentation is a non sequitur to the question of the likelihood that Perry would support a federal DREAM act.

          • acat

            The devil really is in the details on this, Chip. It depends on just what kind of DREAM act you mean.

            Given the percentage of Tea in the House these days, I just don’t see a Reid-style DREAM act getting anywhere. A Texas-style one has a slim chance at best, but even then I think you’re questioning well in advance of evidence.

            In short, if we have a closed border, there’s all kinds of options that should be debated, but none of them make a bit of difference before the border is closed.

            And, I note, you agree that Perry is likely to actually do something to enforce the border.

            Mew

          • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

            A Congress, which, for now, would not send such a bill to his desk?

            Not comforting.

            I have no use for a POTUS who has to be dragged to the right. Who will do that? Boeher? McConnell?

          • chipbennett

            …pass the House. For now.

            But how long did it take for compassionate conservatism and statist, big-government Republican spending did move Congress from GOP majorities in both houses to Democrat super-majorities in both houses? (And consider that the current GOP leadership gives little more than lip service to actual reform of federal spending.)

            So, no: that isn’t especially comforting for me – especially if President Perry is actively advocating for Congress to pass such a bill.

            And yes: I believe that Perry would enforce existing immigration laws, and perhaps even advocate for more/stronger laws.

            In the end, I am a realist, and accept that (perhaps barring Reagan), there is no such thing as a completely perfect candidate. That’s why I support Perry, even if I question some of his positions.

            (Would that more 2008 Obama supporters had taken the effort to consider/question Obama’s stated beliefs. If they had, I daresay that Obama would not have enjoyed as much support from Catholics, conservatives, independents, etc. – support that almost assuredly won him the election.)

          • acat

            but all that debate comes after the border is addressed.

            Then we can talk about guest worker programs, for those who don’t want to become citizens but who want to find work, or “DREAM acts” for those who were brought here as minors, or E-Verify, for making sure that we know who’s who, etc. etc.

            None of it matters until the border is enforced. After that, and turning around the economic situation, we can talk about what level of absorbing vs. deporting is proper….

            Mew

          • chipbennett

            …is the primary reason that I support Perry, and the economic situation, IMHO, is far more important than the Texas DREAM act or Gardasil, or Perry’s debate skills (or lack thereof).

            (Aside from that: I think we’re pretty well on the same page at this point, re: Perry and illegal immigration.)

          • gekster

            that he would enforce the laws on the books.
            In that he has not floundered.

          • chipbennett

            That has nothing to do with the question of the likelihood that Perry would support passage of a federal DREAM act.

          • acat

            After the border is closed, we can discuss what to do with the cleanup, but .. discussing it now seems a bit like talking about what colour to paint the living room while the kitchen is on fire.

            Mew

          • chipbennett

            I probably wouldn’t even be discussing it, if Perry hadn’t resorted to the “heartless” comment when discussing opponents of the Texas DREAM act.

            I hope, from here forward, he focuses his message on what he would do to close the border, and address the problem of 30MM illegal immigrants within our borders.

  • jakecutter

    everyone, including Perry, is missing the point in this conversation. The role of TX government is not to make immigration policy. Rather, they are confined to dealing with the results of federal immigration policy. And the reality is that the Feds have REFUSED to stop illegal immigration. they could do it, they just won’t. As a result, states like TX are faced with the hobson’s choice: take action that may be viewed as creating a magnet or discard these folks and suffer the consequences of a growing welfare rolls, etc.
    Perry and everyon needs to focus on the entity creating hobson’s choice: the fed government which is what perry is running to lead now. the question is what would he do as president of the US, not what he did as the governor of a state held hostage to the Fed gov. He needs to focus putting his solutions out there for solving this problem so that no other governor is continually faced with the same hobson’s choice.

    • runner12

      His performance left me wondering why this Rick Perry did not show up at the debate last night. Hannity was not throwing him any soft questions, either. He basically said that until the Feds get their act together, we have to make choices that are not fun. He pointed out that either these kids wind up on government assistance or they go to college and become citizens. I still am not wild about the idea, but the alternatives are not much better given the lack of aid from the Feds.

      In this interview, I found myself surprised at Perry’s knowledge of the borders issue. This is actually an area on which I might even call him an expert. He does not give the political sound bites, he spoke in reality in this interview. He stated that while fences in strategic metropolitan areas makes sense, a wall would be ineffective based on the sheer size of the border. He advocated for drones and boots on the ground. He actually had a great line when describing the wall. He said “An obstacle without observation is no obstacle at all.”

      Once again, where was this Rick Perry last night?

      • carolina

        There is something about the debate format that seems to freeze Perry’s brain. If he can do a lot more radio interviews…… he may overcome his debate problems for the primary, though that might not help with the general election.

        I think Texas is doing the right thing for Texas with their path to success for ‘innocent’ youth of illegal immigrants – given the Fed failure to control our borders.

      • carolina

        There is something about the debate format that seems to freeze Perry’s brain. If he can do a lot more radio interviews…… he may overcome his debate problems for the primary, though that might not help with the general election.

        I think Texas is doing the right thing for Texas with their path to success for ‘innocent’ youth of illegal immigrants – given the Fed failure to control our borders.

        • wennejunk

          continuously may have something to do with freezing his brain.

          7 of those others have a near zero chance of winning the election at this point.

          They should drop out pick someone to support and leave the nation to figure out if it wants:

          - the flip flop artist, who is a center/left big-government Republican

          -or-

          - the center/right candidate, who will not be the most Conservative choice of those available, but is arguably less big-governmentand more States-rights oriented than either Bush or Romney.

          Perry is the most Conservative candidate able to win the nomination, but he has warts.

          None of the rest have a chance at this point. Its Romney or Perry. The rest of them with their attacks are just moving the nation more to the left by making Romney more appealing.

      • smagar

        …so why not make them productive citizens?

      • Common_Cents

        It’s damn time that conservative states start shipping illegals to sanctuary cities and make them walk their talk. They’d crap and fall all over themselves if a few thousand show up on the city hall steps.

        They’d either be financially sunk by their policy or start having to backtrack on their bleeding heart sound bytes.

        This wouldn’t take much to expose them for the idiots they are or bleed them dry.

      • porkandcheese

        Maybe someone in the crowd knocked him out with a blowdart.

  • tailfins1959

    If Perry can’t deflect misinformation among other Republicans, he will dissolve when Obama and all his supporters dump on him like a waterfall.

    • http://www.rightreality.wordpress.com andysmith

      Perry hasn’t done well at any of the debates, IMO. He’s almost like the Obama of the Republicans. Speak in plattitudes, but when it comes to specifics, he’s pretty empty.

  • msbs05

    I think Perry needs to stand strong on this issue. First, none of the candidates as president should be telling a state how to handle tuition at their state schools. It is a state’s right issue. No students from other states would be elligible anyway since they did not attend TX high schools, so they are not being disadvantaged by illegal kids. The number of illegals able to recieve the in-state price is small and they have to have applied for naturalization. No one on that stage or anywhere else has proposed that all illegals will be rounded up and deported, so since these kids will be in this country they should get an education and be aid to state coffers not a drain on it through welfare.
    Additionally, you cannot just build a fence and expect no illegals to come over or under it. It is border agents we need and that Perry wants to increase. Perry wants equipment and men on the line, which I think is a better idea. To pretend he wants open borders is silly. The agents can be effective in a way the fence never will. Plus there are ranchers that need access to the water that a fence would block, not to mention some of the land is on Indian reservations and they have the choice and choose no fence.
    Perry did not do well at the debate, but I still believe he is the best choice with the best ideas from immigration to jobs. I hope voters do not desert him over a couple debate. There is no one that gives a better speech, more motivating and inspiring, so I know he will do better in the debates soon. Please hold the faith. I do not want to once again settle for a moderate when a good conservative is in reach.

    • ileencuccaro

      ditto, he should stick with what he is and stop listening to his idiot handlers. Say what you mean and mean what you say and just be honest. He is not doing well in the debates, but then again look at the others. Romney has been running for prez since he lost 5 years ago. Bachman and Paul are on the news ever day as they are in the house of reps. Newt has been doing this for 50 years and is a very smart man. Santorum is a big cry baby. Hunstman is a liberal. I like cain but even him I am getting sick of seeing the news shows

      • victoria_29

        Luckily 80%of Americans ignore these stupid debates. I have been looking for my missing dog & so talking to almost everyone in a 15 miles radius & no one I talked to bothered watching & most didn’t even know it was on……so much for debate.

  • ileencuccaro

    Every single state has the same policy for out of state students, no exceptions. If you go to a school out of the state you live in you pay for out of state tuition. Plain and simple. The students are not getting a free ride, they are payin for it. But they live in texas where should they go to school. A lot of kids have been staying in their own state for collage because it is to much money for anyone to go out of state. The requirements for this are strict as well. The have to be working on citizenship etc…I do not believe that anyone should be here illegally nor getting perks that citizens pay for, but Texas is doing the best they could with what they are dealing with. They want tax payers no freeloaders

    • carolina

      Folks who truly believe in states’ rights should respect the decision Texas made for Texas.

    • Doc Holliday

      I admit I left the site for a month, but is this really RedState? I thought we were supposed to be arguing about libertines and statists? Now all of a sudden half the site is arguing fairy tales. There is no “path to citizenship” for illegals, it is not in Texas law, it is not in US law. What is going on here? Why are people claiming things exist that even Kossacks know don’t exist? Is this what I came back for?

      • wennejunk

        Romney is looking stronger, the others have a near-zero chance of winning the nomination and they are willing to accept anything/look the other way on this.

        I agree with you. I disagree with the policy – as a Texan and a Conservative.

        Regardless of how He spins it, it is giving aid and sustenance to illegals.

        I still think he’s the best choice as candidate, but he needs to clean up this mess.

        • carolina

          Next debate might be with 10 (or more) candidates. This is far from over…….

    • chipbennett

      A lot of kids have been staying in their own state for collage

      It’s not their state; they’re not here legally.

      The have to be working on citizenship etc

      How, pray tell, does an illegal immigrant “work on” citizenship? What is the legal path to citizenship for an illegal immigrant?

      I do not believe that anyone should be here illegally nor getting perks that citizens pay…

      You mean, like a public education?

      They want tax payers no freeloaders

      Technically speaking, an illegal immigrant who is accepted into and enrolls into a Texas university can pay the out-of-state tuition, graduate, and become just as much of a taxpayer.

      Every penny of State money that goes toward subsidizing the tuition of an illegal immigrant is money that should be going toward a legal resident of the State (or not spent in the first place, and left uncollected from the taxpayers).

  • Paul Cella

    What does “on the condition that the child agrees to pursue full citizenship” mean, precisely? Is this condition really binding? What path to citizenship is open to these children, and how realistic is Texas being in expecting them to pursue it? Has any student ever had his in-state tuition privilege revoked on account of a failure to comply with this?

    These sorts of ambiguities want some better explication. Those of us to have followed immigration debates for a decade are fully aware how facile is the resort to deceit crowned with sanctimoniousness.

    • msbs05

      Pursuing citizenship means what it says, they have applied for naturalization. Even though illegal they are not barred from applying to be here legally. None of us want bad guys and drug dealers here. I even get the word “illegal” as meaning breaking the law, which most liberals do not, but there is no way and no plan to round up every illegal. It wont happen. These kids are the ones we want to keep in the country – they graduated high school, they are pursuing citizenship to change their status from illegal, which their parents caused, to legal. How many just remain illegal, but these kids desire to be Americans. They passed the tests to enter college, which means they are intelligent and may in the future be a real assest to TX and America. Of all the illegals in this country these are the best and brightest and TX decided to give them a chance and the same advantage other TX high school grads get. I do not know if illegals get Pell grants like other students, you can probably educate me on that, but these kids are not getting a free education, just same discount as the other classmates get. It is TX’s choice to do that and they overwhelmingly voted for it. I just cannot see the anger this causes. I am sure Romney gave both in-state tuition and medical care to illegals, most states do. I want federal immigration overhaul, but this is just a side issue to me.

      • victoria_29

        Fact MA is a sanctuary state-Romney for all his talk is fake. What he is NOT saying is that the majority of his cousins are Mexican citizens. that his Father was BORN in Mexico & had dual citizenship & that is why when he tried to run for President he was shut down. Romney is also not telling you the reasons that his father had dual citizenship, his grandparents were also Mexican citizens. Why you might ask, because the FLED the US to avoid our laws-when pologamy became illegal there was 5 or 6 wives in the picture so OFF to Mexico we go. Gee how patriot. Maybe one of you romney lovers can also explain why NO member of Romney’s family has ever served in the US Military….nor did Romney nor any of his FIVE count them Five sons. Gee sorry if somehow his “patriotism” rings a little false.

        • minister_of_war

          The argument for in-state tuition is that you can’t blame the illegal alien children for the act of immigrating illegally which was committed by their parents. But you want to blame Romney for what his parents or grandparents did.

          Regarding the other topic you mention, it is nothing more than a not-so-veiled anti-Mormon diatribe. Polygamy wasn’t illegal in the United States. Romney’s ancestors practiced it for religious reasons & then the US government made it illegal. What were Romney’s ancestors supposed to do? Dump their wives & children because the government suddenly didn’t like what they had been doing? I think that the religious persecution those people faced was terrible. But it sounds like you care more about despising Mormons than the First Amendment protections of religious liberty that were denied those people well over 100 years ago.

  • chipbennett

    The disagreement with Perry isn’t about the law itself, per se, but rather Perry’s assertion that those who disagree with the law “must be heartless”.

    I would have no (or perhaps, almost no) issue with Perry’s statements, if he had not taken the approach of ad hominem.

    Texas, as a sovereign State, has every right to pass the law that it passed. Perry, as the governor of the sovereign State of Texas, has every right to have signed that law. I don’t argue those points; however, Perry is now campaigning to be President of the United States, and as such, his actions as governor of Texas are germane with respect to his candidacy, because they inform regarding his potential actions as POTUS.

    For Perry to dismiss good-faith criticism of the so-called Texas DREAM act as merely evidence that critics are “heartless” disappoints me greatly, because I want Perry to be our Reagan.

    Let us not forget: George W. Bush 2000-2004 enjoyed relatively high favorability ratings because he adhered to Conservative principles – and yet the George W. Bush of 2004-2008 saw the utter collapse of his party, in large part because he abandoned those principles in favor of his “compassionate conservatism”, with a complicit, big-spending, statist-GOP establishment in Congress.

    We need the pro-jobs, fiscal-conservative Rick Perry – not the compassionate-conservatism-take-two Rick Perry.

    But most of all: we need a candidate who will debate issues rather than resort to logical fallacy, Alinsky-ite tactics.

  • thelastrepublicanin78704

    Let’s not lose sight of the issue at hand: immigration.

    Perry: wants to secure the border, reject amnesty (Dream Act)
    Romney: was for both McCain and Bush amnesty packages, has probably flip-flopped since, hired illegals and refused to fire them for months

    Perry will win the issue in the long-run. He’s not communicating very well, but it’s a clear choice. If Romney were governor of Texas and the feds still refused to secure the border, he’d give blanket amnesty at the state level but not allow in-state tuition, opting instead to make them a burden on society? I’ll take Perry.

    I agree that the focus group shown last night–and even the moderators–don’t know the whole issue.

    It’s not subsidized, and it’s certainly not free. The other candidates were dishonest when they framed the option as “free” (Bachmann) and “subsidized” (Santorum).

    • runner12

      We know Perry’s views on immigration? What are Romney’s? If indeed he supported the McCain and Bush plans, he is actually to the Left of Perry.

      Interesting.

    • runner12

      We know Perry’s views on immigration. What are Romney’s? If indeed he supported the McCain and Bush plans, he is actually to the Left of Perry.

      Interesting.

  • drivlikejehu

    The simple reality is that Perry does not have any interest in stopping illegal immigration. He opposes extending the border fence, even though it is proven to work. He opposes the use of e-verify, even though it is highly accurate and an effective deterrent. He opposes cracking down on employers who take advantage of illegal labor. And of course he supports in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, albeit with some minor conditions.

    In-state tuition is a totally indefensible position that is only being defended by some here because they like Perry on other issues. Illegal immigration costs the state of Texas massive sums of money, from crime to health care to education to transportation. It is outrageous- borderline treasonous, as Perry might say- for illegals to get billions upon billions in benefits as a reward for breaking the law, with in-state tuition a nice cherry on top.

    It is bad enough that Perry holds radical left-wing views on immigration. But what really is galling is that he has accused those who disagree with him of being heartless racists- recall his repeated claim that the “last name” of a person should not used against them, as if any of his opponents actually believe it should. All we get from Perry are straw men, obfuscations, and outright lies, all of which speaks very poorly to his credibility as a conservative.

    • victoria_29

      I am a conservative & have been all my life, but i will NOT vote before I vote for an idiot that wants to fence my state & destroy my families life. What part of River, 800 miles of rural land with no people for miles, cattle water, etc do you people not grasp. The fence is NOT effective ask people in San Diego where they are tunneling Under. Ask people in AZ where it is falling down.

      • chipbennett

        …is an implicit vote for Obama. Such selfish short-sightedness brought us the Pelosi regime, and ObamaCare.

        So, thanks for that.

  • momenomics

    I completely agree with this article! Maybe it takes a person who has actually lived in a border state (I am from Texas – born in a border town) to understand this issue. Should we stop illegal immigration? Heck yeah! Should we take stronger measures to make the border secure? Absolutely. However, these are children (and America is their home) whose parents made a wrong decision. Does it make their parents decision right? No – not even close but if they are going to live in the United States – why shouldn’t they get higher education and better themselves so that they can contribute to our society – plus the law requires them to become citizens and guess what – PAY TAXES – unlike they are doing if they never become citizens. I know most people don’t agree with me on this (including my husband) but I think Texas and ALL the other states that have similar programs (which there are more than you know) .

    • Doc Holliday

      can be on a “path to citizenship” It is against the law for an illegal to be made a citizen. How many times do I have to mention this? Why won’t those making this claim over and over show I am wrong? There is NO path to citizenship for illegals in the legal code, period. dang, what is wrong with people? I am getting a head ache lol.

      • sls3000

        Since there is really no pathway available to these students when they graduate, its almost immoral to string these students along with no possibility, under current law, of gaining league status.

        • Doc Holliday

          because they don’t want to rock the boat; sad.

        • florajo

          I agree. Yet Perry doesn’t see himself as immoral so he must have some future in mind other than the status quo.

      • Vegas_Rick

        which is one way to begin the process of applying for citizenship. Same with an approve work or student visa.

        • Doc Holliday

          it is illegal for an illegal alien to become a citizen.

          • Vegas_Rick

            between applying for citizenship/naturalization and a temporary permit to reside in this country such as a green card, student visa, or work visa?

          • Doc Holliday

            and a bunch of people are choosing to look the other way because they think it will serve them in the end. Illegal immigrants are not allowed in present law to be “on a path to citizenship”, hell they don’t even have green cards.

            I understand there are lawyers upon lawyers, almost all of them lefties, at least to this point, who will try to stretch the law until it breaks if you have the pesos.

            I am getting disgusted by all this. It is one thing to say, let’s change the laws, but when conservatives flat out ignore the laws to fit talking points, we are as bad as our political enemies.

          • Doc Holliday

            no way I am going into the minutuae of green cards, vs work visas, vs student visas. I stand by what I said, hell I said it over and over. I give you the credit for taking me on, you are the first, and this has been going on all day. I will look deeper into the issue and will get back to you.

          • Vegas_Rick

            someone who possesses one of those documents is legally permitted to apply for citizenship. Hell, they can join our military.

          • Vegas_Rick

            I have checked the enitre thread, and I am damned if I can find a comment where you provide a link to any legal statue that would support your theory.

          • Doc Holliday

            the law is the law and you are on the wrong side of it. and you are now on ignore, you are a ghost to me.

          • porkandcheese

            I can assure you you are 100% wrong. Read and factcheck VegasRick, because he has the right of this issue.

          • Doc Holliday

            forget getting back to you, it is not worth it.

            I never thought our movement would turn into La Raza or some cum baye ya gang just because some stiff has not clue. It is funny, I am supposed to be the scary libertarian here, but today it feels like I am at Daily Kos.

            I still have my honor, what do you have?

          • Vegas_Rick

            Yopu don’t know me don’t question my honor, sir. Apparently civil debate over a complicated and contentious issue is beyond you.

          • Doc Holliday

            that is not an ad hominem, just a fact. . my honor is that I am consistent with the facts. I have been here almost 6 years and this site was never for amnesty and free paths to citizenship. Now, all of a sudden, because people think this stiff is our only chance to defeat Obama, we are ready to start a RS chapter of La Raza and march on the Capitol Building. I know SOMEONE has changed his tune, maybe not you, but someone has.

            remember, I am supposed to be the live and let live libertarian here. Now I guess I am the only one who believes we should enforce our laws and protect our borders. And still you have not shown how illegals are on a “path to citizenship”. if they are, the are SCREWING the thousands waiting patiently in their own lands and stupidly playing by the rules.

          • Vegas_Rick

            Your hateful drivel is tiresome.

          • Doc Holliday

            .

          • Vegas_Rick

            You really should take a step back and listen to yourself.

          • Doc Holliday

            not surprising.

            hint, it is not dirty, but it is cool because people like you think it is, that is why i use it.

          • Vegas_Rick

            You fill the bill very nicely

          • Doc Holliday

            you piece of trash. I have said nothing racist. I have been here 6 years, what about you? if I were racist, they probably would have figured that out before you did. I was a pot smoking libertine last month.

            you just stay away from me jagoff.

          • Vegas_Rick

            You went down that road when you questioned my honor for having the temerity to disagree with you. You think I have no honor, I think your comments paint you as a racist.

          • Doc Holliday

            I was talking about MY honor. You sound just like Aaron Gardner, you think everything I say about MYSELF is a comparison to you. I was saying I had MY HONOR because I was consistent with MY beliefs, get it?

            I have been here six years and never until this day, was the word racist ever mentioned even near me. And you think you have the right to say that. If so, then go to hell. I hope you get over it and possibly apologize. But get over it, you just don’t say that to people unless you have a damn good reason.

            anyway, i feel sorry for you, i really do.

          • Vegas_Rick

            that you had yours and I did not. Your comments, none of which have you supported with facts or cites, are all the reason I need. I’ll apologize when you when you apologize to all of those in this thread that you called liars and worse.

            You went to college? Really? Who’d a thunk it.

          • Doc Holliday

            you ask me to cite that illegals can not be legally be on the dole or legally on “the path to citizenship”? You also want me to cite where horse buggery is illegal?

            funny, you call me racist for ,making a La Raza comparison, yet you recco Gamecock’s diary when he did the same thing, very odd.

          • Vegas_Rick

            he very calmly and logically supports his position. The same cannot be said for you.

          • Doc Holliday

            just go away.

          • Vegas_Rick

            I will happily quit wasting my time on you.

          • Bill S

            You think those who agree with Perry on this equate to LaRaza? Well I guess that makes you a stark raving racist for hating brown people.

            See, I can play the dumbass game, too.

          • Doc Holliday

            you have been on me like white on rice. oh well.

          • porkandcheese

            No one has to follow you when you turn up like a bad penny.

          • Tbone

            But, is that a good thing? ;-)

          • Doc Holliday

            it isn’t the Rotary Club. it is most of the people posting today, and well, some other community organizers.

          • victoria_29

            No one is more against blanket amnesty than Rick Perry & most Texans-this is why we have elected him as Gov 3 times. What part of little kids are NOT coming here because one morning at 10 yrs old they wake up & say wow I am going to leave my home & go to Texas. They are being brought here by their parents. I refuse to punish a child for them acts of parents. I know let’s throw all murderer, rapists, burglarers, etc kids in prison, shoot they don’t need trials, their parent is guilty so we have to punish them too. Governor Perry is right you can not have a discussion about immigration to the Feds do their job & shut down the Borders.

            As for Mittens & the rest of those Morons that want to build a fence around Texas, what part of RIVER do they not understand. Guess none of them being from the north have ever looked at a geography book & sure don’t understand that about 800 miles of that border is very rural-you can go miles without seeing a human. And wow guess what ranchers use the river to water cattle….so let’s see Mittens, Bachmann, Cain, etc wants to shut down our way of making a living. And you think we are voting for them?

      • momenomics

        Sorry I should have said residency! Legal Residency – not citizenship – sorry for the mix-up.

        • Doc Holliday

          give them all citizenship, hell, let them vote in this election. I am sure they will all vote Republican since Senor Perry is running.

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

      “plus the law requires them to become citizens and guess what ? PAY TAXES ? unlike they are doing if they never become citizens.”

      WRONG. Anyone who lives in the USA must pay taxes, no matter their residency status.

      Also, you say the law expects them to get legalized, but the only path for that would be AMNESTY. So this program only makes sense if you are for amnesty.

      Those of us opposed to amnesty oppose this program as well, since it is an inducement for that amnesty.

      • Doc Holliday

        this was without a doubt my worst day here and I am going on 6 years here. I took a break for a month and I am seriously thinking of taking another.

      • momenomics

        Do you honestly think most illegals pay taxes? Seriously? Have you ever actually met an illegal or one of the low lives that hires them knowing they are illegal and pays them under the table to save themselves paying taxes? I am not for amnesty but I do think there should be a path to legal citizenship for these children – not their parents – who did not make the decision to come to America illegally. It was the parents decision and if these children want to better themselves by going to college and become a contributing part of society then I think they should be allowed to do that.

      • victoria_29

        Guess most people don’t know your a lib troll

        • momenomics

          Wow, that was really mature! Name calling with no reason behind it! Can’t imagine why we lost the White House in 2008. Can’t imagine….couldn’t have anything to do with the fact the people on the right are disgusting, foul mouthed individuals who up until recently I thought only existed on the left. God save America because if this is what we have for conservatives we are seriously and I mean seriously screwed. You all need to get off of your high horses and stop attacking the Republican candidates – you have given the Democrats more than enough ammunition to destroy any of the candidates on that stage.

  • limbchicken

    Let’s see, Romney said the difference is $22,000 per year per student in this program. If that is so and there are 16,476 students. That comes to a tidy little sum approximating $1.5 Billion Dollars right? That might be chump change for Obama, but it’s not for a state when it comes to the cost of higher education.
    So you say, only 1% right? So why even 1% at $1.5 Billion. See if you can justify that.

  • unclefred

    An illegal who spends at least ONE year in the stat prior to applying to a college ALSO qualifies for instate tuition.

    They must also present a sworn affidavit that they will pursue permanent residency when legally able.

    This is simply a dodge.

    As I have said elsewhere this statute is in direct violation of a federal law passed during the Clinton administration that explicitly make the statute illegal.

    There are a number of serious issues here, that are far more than just instate tuition that need to be asked of Perry and fully answered.

    For the record, between Perry and Romney I would prefer Perry, assuming that he actually addresses the various legal issues surrounding this statute.

  • throwback59

    If as asserted last nite the tuition break is worth 100k and 16k students take advantage of it how much is that? My calculator doesn’t go that high.
    We do not reward children for the crimes of the parents. If a parent robs a bank and uses the money to buy a nice car for the kids, the kids don’t get to keep the house when the parent is caught.
    The idea that an illegal will get a break over a citizen is abhorrant and immoral, there is no justifying it under any circumstances.

    • minister_of_war

      n/t.

  • NeoKong

    What if we substitute the words “Dream Act” for “Romneycare”….?

    Two governors both responsible for in state programs that are not available to residents of another state but are available to illegal aliens living in those two states.
    Two programs that are smaller and identical versions of federal programs Republicans oppose.

    I could make all the very same exact arguments that it is good to give the children of illegals in Mass. state discounted health insurance because it is not their fault they are there and in the long run it is cheaper if they are insured.

    If we give Perry a pass then why do we not give Romney a pass….?
    Also, why is Perry taking flak for his program and Romney….eh…not so much….?

    I myself can look the other way on Perry’s Dream Act because it is not as if he requires people to purchase college degrees.
    The benefit is temporary and the recipient actually has to work hard to receive it. They actually have to contribute some tuition and those who do not participate are not fined because of that.
    Also the total cost per student are known unlike health insurance where sometimes the costs are catastrophic.

    That being said I have to also say it is ridiculous to say it is not a magnet.
    It most certainly is a magnet just like birthright citizenship is.
    It is clearly pandering to illegals whom Mr. Jackson feels are the group that holds the keys to the White House.

    We can maybe let Perry slide on this issue but we must all be honest about what we are actually doing.
    It is a pay off to illegals no different than some big union give away that Democrats always promise.

    Once you pander it is difficult to un-pander.

    • chipbennett

      …but rather, that the economic situation – unemployment, over-regulation, disastrous federal binge-spending – is, IMHO, far more important right now than the matter of illegal immigration (which, admittedly, has indirect impact on the economic situation).

      That, and ObamaCare is the first major step toward outright socialism – and RomneyCare, as the step-child of ObamaCare, utterly disqualifies Romney for me. If he is our nominee, he will get naught more than a nose-held McCain-esque lever-pull from me on election day.

  • dirlie

    but by no logic in the known universe is Perry’s position on this conservative. Calling those of us who disagree heartless smacks of gutless, elite, and shameless liberalism. This is a dis-qualifier. NEXT !!!

  • sablegsd

    professional politician. Especially one that caters to illegal alien invaders.

    Who cares what their hair looks like?
    Who cares if their suits are snappy?

    Only person on that stage I would vote for
    is Herman Cain. At least he knows how it
    is in the real world.

    • conservativecurmudgeon

      and Herman Cain, the “fall back, second choice” winds up as the “Stand Up, First Choice”.

      By most measures Cain and Gingrich won the debate last night. These sorts of performances will not be lost on the voting public, either. Perry is not the Great White Hope that so many have pinned their stars to, and the Second Tier is looking awful First Tier-ish of late.

      Buckle in for a wild ride…

      • Vegas_Rick

        Herman Cain. I think he did a great job last night and has some interesting proposals.

        • Doc Holliday

          you might not like his positions

          • Vegas_Rick

            Be consistent will ya?

          • Doc Holliday

            my bad :)

          • Vegas_Rick

            I have no time for those who can’t bring themselves to be civil. HAGN, sir.

        • carolina

          I was a bit surprised to see how many posters there were really gung ho for Cain.
          I do think Cain has the best positive optimistic approach. It is a relief to listen to him.

        • carolina

          I was a bit surprised to see how many posters there were really gung ho for Cain.
          I do think Cain has the best positive optimistic approach. It is a relief to listen to him.

      • acat

        And yes, it’s going to be a silly season for the history books.

        Mew

  • minister_of_war

    First, who cares that only 4 brave souls in the Texas Legislature voted against this terrible bill. Perry should have vetoed it anyway out of principle regardless of whether or not the Legislature was going to override his veto. If something is wrong, are you trying to say that you should go along with what everybody else is doing in order not to do the ?unpopular? thing? Perry should have vetoed that bill. Period. And maybe then the Legislature would have had second thoughts before forcing this upon Texans.

    You also mention that this bill has only affected 16,476 students in Texas & posit that since this only amounts to 1 % of the students who attended Texas universities, it?s not really a big deal at all. Well, as Romney mentioned last night, the difference in tuition between in-state & out-of-state students at the University of Texas is about $22,000 a year or about $100,000 for 4 years of discounted tuition. Your only 16,476 students then becomes a $16,476,000,000.00 discount when you multiply that many students by the tuition discount they would be receiving. I guess $16 billion is no big deal to tax payers. Yes, I understand that different Texas universities could charge different rates, but don?t try to downplay the significance of the discount that Texas universities are giving.

    Oh, but you say that it?s the oil companies which are paying for the universities in Texas anyway. Well, good for them. And they should be using that money to help educate legal residents of Texas. If illegal aliens from Mexico or whatever other country want to get in-state tuition rates, then the State of Texas should send a bill to the Mexican oil companies or the governments of the countries where those illegal aliens come from so that they can make up the difference. American tax payers & American companies should not be subsidizing those who have no right to be here in the first place.

    But they graduated from a Texas high school? So what? They shouldn?t have even been going to high school in Texas in the first place. And they?ve been here for at least 3 years? So, since they?ve been breaking the law for at least three years, it should be okay. Not!

    • minister_of_war

      n/t

    • runner12

      but they are, and not just in TX. They are attending school all over the US. So what should they do after they go to highschool? Get a low paying job and mooch more off the government? This issue has evolved into a nightmare either way you turn.

      In our passion for this issue, we are losing track of what the real issue is. The Feds have been abysmal at stopping illegal immigration, and not just Obama
      ( although like everything he touches, he has made it infinitely worse). This problem has been growing and growing over time, to the point where states are having to take this issue on. When they do, they are sued by the Feds.

      Look, Perry’s decision was not a good one. But I can understand his rationale for making the decision. At least we are finally having the conversation on this topic in all its complicated ugliness.

      • rightwingmom52

        We can argue all day long about the merits or drawbacks of the Texas law. It’s passed, and unless their state chooses to change it, it’s the law. So besides the other questions I have like how do they pursue citizenship and are there checks to make sure they go beyond merely applying, or how do they get a job with no SS#, what will any of the candidates do with those who remain in the U.S. illegally, including the parents of these kids who are going to college in Texas? Will they deport them? I hear a lot of talk about securing the border and how to do that, but not much about how to solve the problem of the illegals who are here.

        • runner12

          I think most conservatives hold the position that securing the border is priority number one. Democrats do not like this option because they prefer to pursue blanket amnesty first to win votes, thus making the border even more impossible to control. So I do not think that you will hear a lot of talk from conservatives beyond generalities on what to do with the illegals that are already here. Merely because to do so would play right into Dem hands and take the main issue (securing the border) out of the spotlight.

          I think the states would love to be able to deport illegal immigrants, but they can’t. Only the Feds can do so under the Constitution and they have been horrible at enforcing our current laws. Until we get someone in the WH who can wade through this mess, that will not change.

  • renl57

    despite Perry’s attempts to restart it.

    • sls3000

      Bush, Grahm and McCain from the immigration debate a few years ago. I definitely had a nasty case of deja vu.

  • daveoconnor

    and Rick Perry proved that Thursday night. Don’t punish the children for the sins of the fathers.
    Uh, Rick isn’t it the other way around? The children are punishing the taxpayers on behalf of thier law-breaking parents.
    And do you even listen to yourself? We’ll educate the kids so they don’t become a burden to the state.
    What! The state ought to report the whole lot if they in fact know they are illegal. Why should the state assume any burden for known law breakers?
    Trust your own eyes and ears.If Rick Perry should he be elected which is a long shot if debates are involved will break conservative’s hearts. Can you say RINO?

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

    As a Texan and a Perry supporter, I am very disappointed that his is doubling down on his support for this in-state tuition for illegal aliens program.

    It is NOT necessary, not useful, not good immigration or education policy.
    Fact: Texas subsidizes UT students, the in-state tuition rate is a subsidy. Whether the numbers are large or small, legal state residents are not given those slots. There is a cost.

    There is no reason for this program except the expectation of amnesty or legalization of illegal aliens. As such, the program is an inducement for the DREAM Act, and so it is counterproductive to be for this while opposing the DREAM Act. Both should be opposed.

    It’s been pointed out: “As I have said elsewhere this statute is in direct violation of a federal law passed during the Clinton administration that explicitly make the statute illegal.”

    I agree on this too.

    Perry in his performance probably reminded a LOT of people of … G W Bush. More Bush imitations like that and his campaign will go off the rails.

  • notpropagandized

    DearRedState – Please test this question to whomever you can ask it and then after you get your answer, conduct some due diligence on the viability of implementing the answer.

    From Brownsville/Matamoros on The Gulf of Mexico through ElPaso/Juarez, WHERE and HOW will you build the fence to help control illegal immigration?

    I suspect there will need to be a plethora of followup questions to attempt a sensical, full answer.

    • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

      nt

      • sls3000

        Approx. 670 miles of fence has been built recently on the 2000 mile border with Mexico, costing 2.4 billion. This is a mix of about 50/50 pedestrian to vehicle fence.

    • conservativecurmudgeon

      About 238,855 miles away from the equator is a flat and desolate place, surrounded entirely by an empty vacuum. There is no oxygen there. It is called the Sea of Tranquility. There is a 340 degree temperature differential between sun and shade. It will require a force sixteen times greater than gravity to get there.

      How can we travel there? How can we do it?

      We figured it out, that’s how. And it’s been almost 40 years now since we went to the Moon.

      Yes, the Rio Grande comprises a portion of the Border. To my knowledge, hydraulic cement hardens in water.

  • Vegas_Rick

    They have neither the legal nor statutory authority to send them anywhere including back to Mexico. That authority rests with the Federal government and they have chosen not to use it.

    So Texas is stuck with 2 million illiterate or low skilled illegal immigrants with no way of getting rid of them.

    They have chosen to provide in-state tuition rates to those who meet particular guidelines in order to elevate the education and employability of some of these people in order to try and keep them off of the public welfare and unemployment roles.

    What is so horrible about that? What would you have Texas do as an alternative? Pass an Arizona style law that they will not be able to enforce because it is blocked in the courts? I’m sure it would make some of you happy, but what would it accomplish?

    • drivlikejehu

      There are things Texas could do. For instance, Texas could require the use of e-verify for state and local government jobs. Yet Perry opposes even that bare minimum enforcement of immigration laws. If Texas businesses were also required to use it, the state would unquestionably see an attrition in the illegal population.

      • Vegas_Rick

        nt

        • drivlikejehu

          Your post said there is “no way of getting rid of them..” It’s true they can’t physically deport them but they certainly can reduce the incentive to live in Texas illegally. If you don’t want to discuss that then don’t use it as an argument. It’s unquestionably relevant though, showing how Perry supported across the board policies to encourage illegal immigration.

          • Vegas_Rick

            to show what attrition in illegals e-verify has produced when used? Or, are you making an assumption?

          • drivlikejehu

            Well since they are illegals there is always going to be a problem with hard stats. But there is some evidence with respect to Arizona:

            http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/2010/07/30/20100730arizona-immigration-law-student-enrollment-down.html

            Now, the various immigration bills encompass more than just e-verify, at least in theory (given judicial injunctions). But I don’t think there is any rational case that incentive structures magically do not apply with respect to illegal aliens.

            Regardless though, the simple fact is that Perry did absolutely nothing to discourage the hiring of illegal immigrants. It’s not about one policy, but rather a pattern of behavior which, like Obama, shows a disregard for the rule of law.

          • rightwingmom52

            to provide any real statistics, but I can tell you that anyone who looks around can see that the Hispanics are self-deporting because of it. Farmers are complaining to the Ag Commissioner that they can’t get anyone to pick their produce, one of our state senators told me the construction companies are already complaining about lack of labor and in Marshall County (which, from what I’ve heard, has been impacted more than any other county by illegal immigrants), the unemployment rate has dropped by a full percentage point.

          • Vegas_Rick

            for a variety of reason. Our lousy economy being one of the big ones. I’m sure e-verify would do some good, I’m just looking for hard stats. Thanks for the reply.

    • sls3000

      I disagree that it wont’ stand a challenge in the Supreme Court, the the state law goes no further than the federal law it was written to support. This type of symbiosis between fed/state law is called concurrency. You find similar situations with narcotic laws and if the SC where to deem this bill unconstitutional it will be a big deal in a lot of bad ways.

      • Vegas_Rick

        It has been blocked in the lower courts and it’s costing them millions to litigate it.

        • westcoastpatriette

          there is another law that has received very little attention in the press and Arizona won big time.

          This one was passed in AZ in 2007 and was a mandatory E-Verify requirement for all employers in the state. The law carried with it penalties for not using the system as well as for being caught employing illegals including revoking the business licenses of offending businesses.

          Of course, the law was challenged and wound its way through the courts and in May of this year the US Supreme court upheld the law. This is a huge victory for states that are attempting to address this horrendous problem and is emboldening other states to follow suit.

          • westcoastpatriette

            It is also the reason the business community is now pushing for a federal mandatory E-Verify law as they realize they are losing the argument and want uniform laws throughout the nation.

        • minister_of_war

          Arizona taxpayers are paying the cost of litigation against a ridiculous law suit by the federal government because SB 1070 is right.

          The cost of illegal immigration exponentially out way the cost of litigating this case. Sometimes it’s important to pay the cost of doing things because they are right.

    • smagar

      They have neither the legal nor statutory authority to send them anywhere including back to Mexico. That authority rests with the Federal government and they have chosen not to use it.

      So Texas is stuck with 2 million illiterate or low skilled illegal immigrants with no way of getting rid of them.

      If the Federal government won’t act—and it hasn’t for years and years and years—then there’s nothing wrong with states trying to make their residents as competent as possible.

  • florajo

    Tell me if I’m wrong. I don’t think we want a change from illegals taking the jobs “Americans won’t do” to taking the jobs we send our children to college to strive for. Aren’t we selling our children out?

    • aesthete

      Your child deserves whatever he can earn. He sure doesn’t deserve people like you putting your thumbs on the scales and allocating Texans’ tax money exclusively for your son at the expense of other potential contributors. If you want to oppose tax monies going towards illegals based on consistency, fine, but dooming a class of people to peonage through government fiat so that your son can have a tax-subsidized education is deplorable and tribalistic.

      • florajo

        Who are the other contributors? Illegals? No. Come on now. I’m tribalistic and fine with it. Who is getting the education welfare here?

        • aesthete

          who are paying less through taxes for their education than it would be worth in the free market are getting “education welfare”. What makes you think that those Americans are deserving of subsidies in a way that illegals who pay sales taxes aren’t? Bonus question: how does an immigrant (illegal or otherwise) “take” an American job, and why should the American consumer, the American business, and the immigrant himself be harmed because some American wants to do the immigrant’s job at an arbitrarily higher wage?

  • jen0517

    Why isn’t any one saying this? He could NOT veto the bill even if he wanted to – it was passed by a huge margin in a Democrat controlled State House and State Senate with 16 Republicans and 15 Democrats. I guess he could have just ignored it, but it would have become law regardless.

    • Vegas_Rick

      these mundane facts. It doesn’t fit their narrative.

    • chipbennett

      …otherwise, if initial passage by super-majority were sufficient to deem the legislation as law, it would not have needed his signature in the first place.

      Obviously, he could have vetoed it, thereby forcing the legislature to override his veto – in which case, he would neither be responsible for its passage, nor in a position of having to defend his signing of the law.

      In fact, due to the nature of Texas statutes, the veto can be an extremely powerful – and even final – weapon in the governor’s arsenal.

      • Doc Holliday

        so that negates Jen’s point. I am tired of this law, I have been gutted, flayed, and spit roasted over this issue, I am done with it. In the end, this will not finish Perry, but it shows he is rocky and not in a Stallone way. He can’t debate a lick. I am just hoping Gingrich or Cain can pull a major move at this late date. Even Palin has a chance because Perry and Romney are so bad.

        • dirlie

          I am Doc Holliday !!!

        • chipbennett

          Perry clearly didn’t want to veto the bill. He clearly was then – and remains now – fully supportive of the law.

          But the notion that he was incapable of vetoing the bill, merely because it was passed by a super-majority, is patently absurd.

    • minister_of_war

      It was like the movie “Hostage” with Bruce Willis. If Perry didn’t sign the bill, the entire family would have died.

      If they do make this into a movie, I wonder who will get to play the part of Rick Perry who had NO CHOICE but to sign the bill into law.

  • gawken

    So why bother…..unless with their BA or BS they get an exemption from E-VERIFY

    • smitch61

      I am sorry, just posted that… Did not see your comment first… I agree.

  • smitch61

    that’s fine… but what is the point of going to school? We cannot hire them legally when they are finished, correct?. Or are they being primed for Mexico employment?… It is a both sides of the mouth argument.

  • Tbone

    It’s called the exercise of states rights. Don’t like the law, don’t live there. End of story.

    However, it is amusing to read the stupid, ignorant statements upthread blurted out by those whose already mass challenged brain matter is running out their ears.

    • Common_Cents

      Wondering how that is much different.

      • Tbone

        What right do I have to tell MA what it should do?

        Difference is that offering Texas resident tuition rates to, well, Texas residents is not called Perrycare, is it? Why is that?

    • chipbennett

      That argument is utterly specious, unless you really expect voters to believe that Perry wouldn’t support at the federal level a law that he himself signed into law as governor of Texas.

      We’re not saying that Texas didn’t have a right to pass the law, but rather that the law is bad policy that speaks ill of Perry’s conservative credentials and suitability as candidate for President of the US.

      • Tbone

        don’t vote for him. See how simple your solution is?

        • chipbennett

          …still currently my #1 choice, as I’ve stated elsewhere. That doesn’t mean that I can’t consider, question, and/or disagree with some of his policy positions as governor.

          As for “pure stupidity based upon the facts”: that would be how I would describe a claim that Perry-as-President wouldn’t support a federal DREAM act. Clearly, it is a moral imperative for him, and a law that he has passionately defended.

          While I believe that economic issues are FAR more important in this election, and that Perry is thus the FAR better choice than Romney, that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t consider the potential implication of Perry holding such a view – much less, the implication of Perry’s appeal to ad hominem in calling opponents of the law “heartless”.

          Why do you keep seeing this only as a states-rights issue? The states-rights question has absolutely nothing to do with this.

          I would similarly question your stance on Romney. If our goal is the complete repeal of ObamaCare, is electing RomneyCare-supporting Romney really a good idea?

    • minister_of_war

      States can make their own laws, yes, but they cannot violate federal law when the federal law involves one of the enumerated powers expressly given to Congress.

      As the 10th Amendment states, any other powers that are not enumerated to Congress are left to the states & to the people.

      Funny thing though is that setting immigration policy is actually one of those enumerated powers given to Congress. And the State of Texas is in violation of the federal law when Texas grants any rights to people who have no right to be in these United States in the first place.

      It’s different than what Arizona did because Arizona did not break federal law. Arizona is only doing its job to enforce federal law just. And that would be a states rights issue.

      • Tbone

        Why would you ask it? Where did I say that states could make laws that violate federal laws? Where? I swear, some of you guys operate with 2 digit IQs.

        • minister_of_war

          Obviously, you don’t get the point. States cannot make laws that violate federal statutes unless the federal statute goes beyond the enumerated powers granted to Congress.

          Since it is Congress’s job to decide immigration policy, neither Texas or any other state has the authority to grant de-facto rights to those that the federal government deems have not met its immigration requirements.

          If we are just supposed to roll over any time that a state makes a law & say, “It?s called the exercise of states rights. Don?t like the law, don?t live there. End of story”, then obviously states could just break federal law when they see fit up to and including permitting slavery.

          The 10th Amendment has its limits. And Perry & the Texas Legislature have attempted to circumvent those limits with this law granting benefits for people that Congress has deemed have no right to be here in the first place.

          • gekster

            “that Congress has deemed have no right to be here in the first place”.
            but won’t do anything about them.

            So if you could tell me. just what do you do with people that Texas can’t deport, and the feds won’t deport.

            What would be your plan.

          • minister_of_war

            … actually enforce the laws for once. It will take time but doing what Obama wants to do & just ending deportations all-together is the wrong answer.

          • minister_of_war

            … and that’s the will of the federal government to actually do something about this problem. They don’t even want to solve it right now.

  • smagar

    America needs well-educated young people. Lots of them. Rick Perry’s plan…no, actually, Texas’ plan—makes lots of sense.

    It is not a giveaway to people who just jumped the fence/swam the Rio Grande and walked straight to the college registrar’s office. It is designed for those people who give every indication that they plan to stay here.

    Shame on Romney and others who mischaracterize this plan.

    • Doc Holliday

      every semester we waited for the first run of tests so we could finally get a parking place. About of third of those “accepted” left unceremoniously around the third week, in a mass “migration”. I wonder how many of these illegals got in with affirmative action, and then went home after three weeks?

      I wonder how many out of staters were rejected but missed out because of these people.

      • smagar

        From what little I know of the Texas law, it says that illegal immigrants who get into Texas colleges pay the same rate as Texas resident US citizens. At least, that’s what Perry is being bashed for in these debates.

        Does the law give illegal immigrants a preference in admissions?

        • Doc Holliday

          but there are laws and “policies” that favor minorities or those of little means. If someone gets in on their own merit, then fine. I guess I resent the law because I know people personally who risked their lives in the armed forces just to get in state tuition in Texas, and these people were citizens. There is simply something wrong about giving illegals something American citizens can not have. I know, people will argue ’til they are blue in the face about sales taxes, these people just don’t know how public universities in Texas are paid for, hint, it is not through sales taxes.

          But I am done with this argument, I have said all I can say. At this point I just want the best candidate to beat Obama. I don’t know if that is Perry, I have my doubts. If this were Scrabble I would throw in all my letters and start over.

    • Tbone

      “people who just jumped the fence/swam the Rio Grande and walked straight to the college registrar?s office.”

    • smill1953

      Is it right for an illegal to take a place in the university from a citizen? Something’s very wrong about that. It’s not like there are unlimited spaces at state colleges.

      • smagar

        If it does, then you have a point.

        If it doesn’t, then you don’t.

        But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that the law DID give preference to illegal immigrant applicants. If that’s what Texas voters—-or their duly elected representatives—want, then that’s there business.

        If Texans don’t like it, they can vote in different politicians. Perry keeps getting re-elected in Texas, so…

        • Doc Holliday

          certainly I believe in states rights, but as everyone seems to say illegal immigration is a federal issue, is this law even federally legal? I mean, we trash San Francisco for being a “sanctuary city”, well I guess Austin and College Station are now sanctuary cities too. I wonder if this law was ever challenged, I wonder what the Supreme Court might say about it.

          Having said that, Perry is already the governor of Texas. If he wants to focus on Texas business, he already has that job. He is applying for the job of president of the United States. Every American gets to interview Perry, and they get to use their own criteria. Since non Texans get to decide as well, they can say what Texas is doing is wrong. Sure, they can’t change Texas law, but they can use it to make a decision on the next president.

          • smagar

            I’d see your point.

            But, just because Perry thought it was a good idea for Texas doesn’t mean he wants it to become a national policy.

            Has Perry said that he wants to take this particular Texas law—instate tuition for illegals, the subject of Brad’s article—national? I don’t think he has.

            Now, Perry needs to convince ALL Americans, not just Texans, that this law was a good idea and reflects well on his judgement as a leader. I agree with you there…and I’m confident Rick Perry does, too. He has to make the sale with voters all over the country.

  • victoria_29

    Excuse me for inserting a little rationality into some of the irrational comments I see on here. As a Texan let me point something out to you people. I seem to remember MOST of you screaming your heads off when Obama rammed Obamacare down our throats, yet the very same people are beating Perry up for our in-state tuition. First this was passed 10 years ago in 2001-things were a hell of a lot different, but forgetting that. What part of this are you people not grasping, this bill was SUPPORTED in 2001 by 80% of the state, it passed with 99.6% vote of our legislature. This was a VETO PROOF majority, in other words people Rick Perry could NOT veto this.

    Now for the comparison to Obamacare. I personally do not know if Rick Perry personally agrees or don’t agree with our bill. Facts are in my state there is a large Hispanic vote. However, facts are that Perry is our Governor IMO it is his job to do the will of the Texas people. Just like as President it is the job of President to listen to Americans. You can rag on Perry all you want about this, but I find you extremely hypocritical if you dare dislike Obamacare. It is the same deal. Obama ignored the American People, Perry listened to Texans-& you people beat up both of them…so which do you want? Someone that listens or someone that doesn’t.

    • sls3000

      Presidents and Governors who have used their veto power, even in the face of being overturned, to take a stand against something they don’t agree with.

    • lottoj

      because our only options are Obama or Perry.

    • chipbennett

      …whereby a super-majority vote of the legislature removes the power of the governor to veto a bill?

      • carolina

        There is nothing unusual about that.

        • chipbennett

          The assertion was that Perry couldn’t veto the bill, not that the legislature couldn’t override such a veto.

  • jaykali

    The politics of it is terrible. This is a major blow to Rick Perry. I wonder if the Romneycare deal has been around so long that people basically have grown numb to it whereas these recent Perry attacks are much more fresh.

    Conservatives hate Obamacare with a passion and the fact that it doesn’t damage Romney more than it does it really quite amazing. He is much better prepared for these debates. I don’t know if these debates will be the difference or not but I could see Perry losing some steam. He’s been my guy but his debates seem to be getting worse and his answers on the immigration and HPV sound like Democrat answers. It’s bad.

    • beach91

      SO all the above people posting are MORE disheartened by Perry’s in-state tuition issue and Romney gets a pass on the ORomneyCare! Simply ridiculous!

      • lottoj

        Not liking Perry’s in-state tuition != Giving a Romney a pass on RomneyCare.

        Since it continues to escape so many people’s notice, I’ll mention (again) that there are more than two people in the race. Remember all those complaints about having too many people on stage? There are other options.

        • jaykali

          I like Cain a lot, I can’t stand Bachman.. Huntsman for a moderate-type has some nice answers, all of them have some nice answers here or there but it’s hard to take anyone seriously polling in single digits.

          Once we have a legit 3rd candidate who isn’t Ron Paul I will take notice. Cain has the ‘Mr. Smith’ goes to Washington vibe that I really like. But in the end I still feel like it’s these two until proven otherwise.

          I think Romney is going to continue playing it safe, the only other change I could see is if Perry stumbling causes someone else to emerge again. I think that won’t be Bachmann.

        • beach91

          Romney and Perry are the frontrunners. I like Gingrich and Cain but I do not think they will get much traction. Bachman lost me in the second debate. So yeah we are giving Romney a pass on ORomneyCare!

          • lottoj

            You should try it. I’ll give it another shot. Just because I don’t like Perry’s position on this issue does not mean I’m giving Romney a pass on Romneycare. Romney doesn’t get a pass. Perry doesn’t get a pass. See that. They both simultaneously don’t get a pass.

            Everyone says they like Cain and/or Newt but ‘he’s not polling high enough’. Well maybe that would change if people started supporting the person they really like instead of worrying about polls and picking somebody who might not win. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

          • beach91

            Romney has gotten a pass cause all the posting on here is about the TX in-state tuition thingy. If there has been another diary such as this one on ORomneyCare, I will gladly retract my statement. BTW I was sticking with the original poster’s (jaykali) thread when you jumped in to change the subject. Maybe you should use your own logic for once.

          • lottoj

            Did you even bother to do a search? There are pages and pages of diaries that reference Romneycare many of which it is the primary topic.

            Here’s one: http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/09/15/romneycare-a-microcosm-of-obamacare-according-to-conservative-study/

            I didn’t realize referencing your own words was changing the subject. My bad.

          • lottoj

            It’s a little ironic that you accuse me of trying to ‘change the subject’ when you are attempting to do just that by pointing at Romney’s failures in an attempt to justify Perry’s.

          • jaykali

            It’s like the movie where the girl settles on the safe guy but is miserable…

            I like his debates, I like his ability to articulate arguments and take shots at his opponents and he’s believable and all that but I think most of us still look at him sideways as a slick politician who doesn’t really have core convictions.

            Anywho I was excited ab Perry but his inability to defend positions and attack his opponents on substance is frustrating. I can forgive incoherent foreign policy answers from time to time bc this is not a foreign policy election but he should be tee-ing off on Romney and he is unable to do so.

            Anyways we are months away from primaries so he’s got time to recover I suppose. I am also tired of waiting for ‘Christie’ or some other savior to ride in on his high horse.

            As long as I can get Rubio as the VP candidate no matter who is the nominee I think I’ll be satisfied bc he is our ‘chosen one’ I believe.

          • acat

            I feel I owe John McCain some credit for preparing me for this.

            Mew

          • Doc Holliday

            if we take the Senate, we can temper some RINO’isms. But you have to guarantee the win now.

          • acat

            …the RINO tendencies from that most august and exclusive debating club, not the other way ’round.

            One of the reasons I liked Pawlenty is that he went toe to toe with the Dem-controlled statehouse and knocked their teeth in.

            One of the reasons I like Perry is he’s stood up to the GOP-controlled statehouse a time or two – the Amazon tax comes to mind.

            Mew

          • Doc Holliday

            I would gladly exchange for Perry and Romney. I am still holding out hope for Perry, but will a leopard change his spots? I don’t think he has the campaign chops.

          • acat

            Otherwise, we’d have had President Gingrich’s 2nd term by now….

            Mew

          • Doc Holliday

            I am including it all in the critique.

          • Doc Holliday

            I did not start that way. I was all for Perry not long ago, even with my criticisms. I just don’t think he can pull it off, it being defeating Obama and the MSM.

          • jaykali

            I think Perry will be glad when the debates settle down, seems like we’ve had a million in a row…he is not a bad speaker, but his debate skills are terrible.

  • Green_Lantern

    Christie is running.

  • Knightbrigade

    since when should an ILLegal get to receive ANYTHING except a ticket out of the country? No in-state tuition, NO drivers license, etc.
    Amnesty…in some form ..or… OUT. That’s the choice.
    I know the feds are jerks and are not enforcing the law, but does that mean state leaders have to give in?

  • victrola

    I thought that was an important point made in the debate, a similar bill came up and Romney vetoed it, even in a VERY liberal state like Massachusetts.

    So what does that say about Perry that Romney is to the Right of him on an issue as important as illegal immigration?

    How do we know Perry won’t grant some sort of Amnesty Plan if he’s President? His policies over the years (like opposing a border fence, in state tuition for illegals, against AZ SB1070 law, etc) makes him about as open borders as you get.

    I’ve seen far worse thrown at other Republicans for FAR less for being on the side of open borders and amnesty. Remember the label Juan McCain?

    • nepanyrush

      It does seem that Romney and all of the other candidates on stage are to the right of Perry on this issue and yet many on Redstate actually support in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants. Actually, this has to be one of the most unexpected positions I ever saw on redstate. It feels like the twilight zone.

      There are a lot of international kids in American universities who do things the right way — apply from their native countries, get the I-20 visa, and pay the higher rate. Bet they wished their families had snuck across the border and saved them $100,000 in loans.

  • throwback59

    just like the Meghan McCain column last week.
    I mean, Jackson really wasn’t serious…right?

    • Remington_Steele

      Tell me anything Brad… tell me anything… sheesh.

  • izoneguy

    For Romney, Santorium or Bachmann.

    If you became President – would you pass a national
    law outlawing in-state tuition for children of
    illegal immigrants?

    • smill1953

      The Federal government has no business telling a state whom they can charge how much for a state institution. That’s sounds like something a Democrat would support.

      • californiagold

        Senator Santorum: If you really were a pro life conservative, why did you endorse pro choice liberal Arlen Specter instead of conservative Pat Toomey for senate ?

        • californiagold

          Senator Santorum: If you were the governor of Texas, where millions of children and young adults have lived most of their lives illegally through no fault of their own, would you have those people arrested and then deported ? And is that what Christ would do ?

          • izoneguy

            Santorum?s Ill-Advised Border War

            Santorum is absolutely correct about one thing: Barack Obama would not have supported the plan, which would have liberalized health-insurance regulations in Texas, allowing insurance companies ? private companies ? to write policies on both sides of the border, and to write policies that cover medical procedures on both sides of the border. Which is to say, Santorum was giving Perry grief for having the audacity to suggest that insurance companies ought to be allowed to sell insurance to whom they please and where they please, that consumers ought to have more choices, and that we can alleviate the costs of providing health care to the uninsured by letting markets work. No doubt Barack Obama would be opposed ? but why is Rick Santorum? Two possible answers to that question: 1. He is engaging in cheap demagoguery. 2. He has no idea what he is talking about.

            Governor Perry has got a lot of grief for allegedly coddling illegals, but here?s something to keep in mind: Governors don?t set federal border policy ? they just have to deal with its real-world consequences. Congress writes the law.

            A guy who wants to deploy Predator drones and the U.S. military to police the border, who would ban sanctuary cities, and who handed the Obama administration a $350 million bill for the cost of dealing with illegals in Texas is not an open-borders squish.

            Santorum ought to approach the issue with a little more circumspection. He spent a decade and a half in Washington, during which time the federal government did approximately zilch on border security, while Perry ? who does not have an army or the power to make immigration policy ? has dispatched the Texas Rangers, along with millions of dollars, to do a job that Washington ought to be doing but isn?t.

          • Scope

            along the Texas Mexico border that the walking bag of big promises says she will build a fence along every mile and ever foot of.

            I wonder if she will order that fence building before or after she single handidly repeals Obamacare?

          • onemovoter

            of having to use imminent domain through all of the private lands along the border, much of which is ranch land that needs access to the water of the Rio Grande. The “environmental impact” of a fence on the local wildlife. And of course how do you build a fence in the Rio Grande which think “Grand Canyon” on a large part of the border.

            I would think, at least if it was me as a rancher, that I would prefer active troops along the border who would have my back with illegals.

          • Xasteius

            about that fact. If we as conservatives start using the same methods that we decry the liberals using to satisfy our wish list, we descend once again to the Bush era of Democrat-lite.

          • onemovoter

            using the same methods that liberals are using. It’s about looking at the current reality of things and going from there towards the goal we as conservatives want.

            It’s what I’ve said here before. The ideal and the reality are usually much different from each other. Working from the reality towards the ideal is how conservatives should do things. However, I’ve seen too many conservatives posting here at RS that don’t take the time to look up the reality. The reality is a mess. So lets accept the mess and get people who have had to deal with the mess first hand to help clean it up.

            I have been doing the research on these subjects, and find that Perry is right on many of the immigration issues. I just wish many of my fellow conservatives and TEA party folks would take the same time in researching current laws and constitutional powers between state and federal.

          • defenseconservative

            I think Rick Santorum simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about. It’s common for politicians to babble nonsense about issues they know absolutely nothing whatsoever about.

            But don’t worry about Santorum.. After the Iowa caucus, he will be a former candidate.

  • jjhlh1

    is how I feel today. Perry’s debating skills are poor. I think he is the best candidate and want him to win, but he needs to do so much better.

    One thing to remember though, the debates aren’t only about performance. As John Podhoretz wtites in his column today; they are also about the way the interchanges reveal the character of the candidates — their political character.
    Do they stand up for what they believe? Do they believe in anything, or are they just willing to say whatever their audiences want to hear? Is unprepared and graceless worse than smooth and false in the eyes of voters desperate for authenticity? In my opinion the answer is no, which is why I will never vote for Romney in any election. Lord forgive me, but I can’t do it.

  • popdaddy

    It?s time conservatives get a grip on the objective.

    I am a Texan, have lived in multiple states and survived Carter/Clinton. But if we all don?t get a grip, Obama and the Socialist Democrat Party may bury us all as we pick at substance they could not care less about.

    This illegal alien in-state tuition has been a burr under my saddle for years. But the Brad Jackson post id not include the fact that the Supreme Court ruled illegal aliens have the right to attend public schools paid for by taxpayers who don?t include their illegal alien parents.

    I?d like nothing better than to have an INS bus follow some of the school buses I have seen full of illegal alien kids. But that?s not allowed.

    I don?t agree with the state law that allows some of these kids to get in-state tuition but Mr. Jackson pointed out the reason why it exists . The Texas Association of Business, not a socialist entity by any means, lobbies for concessions to illegal?s and there is no more powerful association in the state..

    I get that you don?t like it but Governor Perry for some reason has not explained the facts. He has a lot of influence but the Texas Legislature only convenes every other year for 120 days. (All government would benefit the constitutes by a similar policy)
    Governor Perry proposed legislation against sanctuary city protection of illegals that was voted down by the GOP Rhino House Speaker. Legislation to adopt E-verify was also killed by the rhino Speaker and the Texas Association of Business.
    I am confident Rick Perry would not adopt the Dream Act / amnesty proposals of the rhinos of the GOP and the Socialist Democrat Party.

    I encourage all of you to step back and focus on the objective of getting rid of Obama, his socialist polices and reducing the size /taxes/regulations of the federal Government.
    Rick Perry will do that.
    Don?t throw out the baby with the bath water!

    • momenomics

      You are so right! Glad someone gets it.

  • californiagold

    Although I support a fence, I don’t understand all the anger towards Perry on the immigration issue. Afterall, his position is no worse than that of Ronald Reagan or GH Bush.

    If you don’t believe me, do a google….Reagan actually made public statements in which he supported amnesty for illegals.

  • madjayhawk

    16,000 illegals taking advantage of the new law represents approximately 80-90% of the UT freshman class. 16,000 times $20,000 (the difference between resident and nonresident tuition) represents a $320 million dollar subsidy to individuals illegally in this country that is not given to other deserving students who legally live here. Is this fair Gov Perry? And who in the world do you think pays this $320,000,000 subsidy Gov Perry? Good luck on getting the Republican nomination Gov Perry.

    • gekster

      are they just off the top of your head, or cold facts.

      Please provide the basis for your numbers.

    • popdaddy

      The University has a strict admission policy of having only the grads of top 10% of high school classes can be even considered for admission. Maybe a few of these illegal alien kids meet that criteria,

      Most of these illegal alien kids who have somehow graduated fron high school, are enrolling in community or UT/A&M regional colleges.

      • acat

        Your content is on target, your title was poorly chosen.

        Mew

        • Doc Holliday

          I think they have a guarantee for top grads, actually it is a way to let people in with LOWER SAT’s etc, from weak schools. There is no way UT has a rule that says they will ONLY accept people in the top 10 percentile, that is just wrong, and wrong means false.

          • Doc Holliday

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_House_Bill_588

            the point of the law is to let people get into college who would not otherwise get in. No matter how bad your school is, if you are in the top ten percent, you get into college.

          • gekster

            from the site:

            The law only guarantees admission into university.
            Students must still find the means to pay, and may not achieve their desired choice of major.
            (Another existing law, which preceded 588, provides a full tuition scholarship for the class valedictorian of a Texas high school for their freshman year at a state public school.)

            Weather for or against, I find it amazing of all the misinformation these posters have regarging this one subject, when it is obvious that they have the internet at hand, and refuse to use it to get informed.

  • septembergurl

    Now that Rick Perry is for illegal alien amnesty, we are all for it! We abanon our previously deeply held opposition to amnesty and embrace it thoroughly!!

    Too funny. Thanks for the laugh.

    • californiagold

      …I never heard a word from Fox News or Romney about the Reagan/Bush support for amnesty for illegals.

      Convenient silence ?

      • westcoastpatriette

        If I remember correctly, at that time, there were less than one million illegals in the country (as opposed to twenty million now) and Reagan later acknowledged that he was wrong on the issue.

        • californiagold

          Not only Reagan, but GH Bush, campaigned on, and supported legislation, in favor of amnesty. Nor did either one of them do much in the way of protecting the border from illegals. Acknowledging their mistakes after the fact doesn’t solve the problem.

          Whereas Rick Perry has been forced to deal with an immigration problem that was in many respects directly related to the failures of previous administrations, including Reagan’s and Bush’s. Yes, there are millions more illegals living all across America. The question is what to do with them. Perry says they should be educated and be given a chance to be productive members of society.

  • levinfan90

    ‘LOL’ is the only thing one can say in response to this inanity from this Perry follower. This whole defense of Perry’s undeniably non-conservative position amounts to ‘There’s nothing wrong with supporting a liberal position…as long as its Perry and not a Democrat’.

    I’m not going to get into all of the absurd things posited in this piece (of garbage), as I see some other intelligent and honest conservatives here have already done so, but I would like to comment on one thing.

    “Besides the fact that Republicans will be shut out of power for ages to come if they alienate Hispanics, it?s entirely inappropriate and un-American to punish the children of immigrants who may have fled their dysfunctional, failing, or dangerous homeland for a better life here in America.”

    So basically, the way we Republicans need to win over Hispanics is to give up our conservative principles and respect for the Rule of Law in order to appease a racial minority which wants free benefits and jobs and citizenship for all of their racial/ethnic brothers and sisters south of the border and those already here illegally. How is this any different than just supporting Obamacare because the black community likes it, or supporting public unions because the liberals like it, or supporting gay marriage because the gays want it? Heck, why don’t we just vote for Obama while we’re at it? I mean, seriously, how else will we get the BLACK vote in 2012?

    This is nothing more or less than pure political pandering. If we succumb to this establishment Republican tactic, we are literally no better in any way than Boehner or McConnell, McCain, Snowe, Brown, Murkowski, Bush, Rove, Hutchison, Daniels, Christie, and all of the other weak-kneed figures in the Republican Party who most of us here understand to be the enemies of true conservative reform, people we need to throw out of office if we are serious about truly bringing this country off the edge of the cliff.

    Supporting people like Perry and defending their indefensible positions and actions amounts to us ignoring reason, abandoning our principles, and ensuring the destruction of our party. If our party is the party of Bush to stay, not the party of Calvin Coolidge or Abraham Lincoln, how much longer do you think it will be before serious conservatives abandon it? Its not going to happen right away, but a Neville Chamberlain is sure to lead to a Winston Churchill. Maybe in a long-run this will be a good thing, then, for our party to remain the party of Big Government, while the Democrats remain the party of Huge Government. This can’t go on forever. There will be a point, there HAS to be a point at which conservatives demand a clear alternative to the Democrat Party, not one which is a little less bad, but one which is GOOD.

    I’ve never been one for third parties, because they never go anywhere, and conservatives like myself are trying to reform the GOP from the inside out. But with people who call themselves conservatives defending this kind of left-wing policy on such left-wing terms, it seems eminently clear to me that this experiment may not be working…at all. Add to that the leadership of our party in Congress, so unwilling to hold the line for conservative principles, yet so quick to condemn and demonize and tear down any conservative in the GOP who does hold the line for our principles, and we have a problem on our hands which makes true progress in the Republican Party increasingly appear to be nothing more than a mirage.

    Since this brilliant blogger brought up the vital need to win the Hispanic vote by giving them exactly what they want, regardless of what’s RIGHT, I have a few more brilliant suggestions.

    1) Let’s not work on any entitlement reform. Reason why: It scares seniors, and we need their vote. It doesn’t matter that these programs are unsustainable. Who cares? The fact is, we need the senior vote. Or our party is doomed to defeat.

    2) Let’s not try to cut or reform welfare. Reason why: It angers the black community, as well as poor Americans everywhere. It doesn’t matter that welfare needs to be cut, and that it is deeply immoral and fiscally irresponsible. Who cares? The fact is, we need the black vote, or we will be seen as ‘racists’ and doomed to defeat in the future, since America is becoming more and more diverse. And we need the poor vote. Poor people vote, and if we hurt their feelings, they won’t vote for us. It would be stupid and suicidal for us to cut their unemployment benefits or food stamps or anything else. We don’t want to be seen as ‘stupid’. Clearly.

    3) Let’s support abortion. Reason why: Many Americans support it. Us being on the side of ‘life’ makes us look like regressive religious nuts, and uncaring to mothers everywhere. Sure, its murder, and the unborn need to have life before they can have liberty or the pursuit of happiness in America, but who cares? If we support abortion, we will get millions of new votes from people who support it. It will also make us look more caring and pro-women. We don’t want to be seen as ‘sexist’. Obviously.

    4) Let’s support the EPA. Reason why: More and more Americans believe that our world is in danger, and that we need to take pro-active steps to make our environment cleaner. Sure, it creates regulations which hurt the economy greatly, take away individual liberties and kill huge numbers of jobs. Who cares, though? The fact is, the EPA is taking action to protect our world, one regulation at a time, and millions of environmentalists and progressive thinkers in America agree. We definitely need the environmentalist vote. If we don’t become more environmentally friendly, we will be seen as pro-pollution and unscientific, and bad caretakers of Mother Earth. Obviously that would doom us as a party because more and more people are becoming concerned about holes in the Ozone and slowly but surely increasing global warming, and we need to change our mindset to appeal to those concerned voters. We’d be stupid not to.

    5) Let’s stop going after public unions. Reason why: Millions of voters support public unions, and think they provide an essential service to workers in this nation. Sure, they are given free benefits and sweet deals no one else gets in the private market, and unfair wage increases annually, and all of that money comes from taxpayers who don’t get any of those awesome privileges. But who cares? Demonizing these hard working public servants only makes us look uncaring and anti-education. We need the pro-union vote or our party is doomed because we will appear more and more ‘extreme’ in our approach towards their unions they support. This is a center-right country, not an EXTREME country. We want to be on the right side of history.

    I could go on, but I think you get the point. Or maybe you don’t. That’s okay, too. Seeing how absolutely brilliant Rick Perry is in the debates, it only makes sense that his fans may be themselves too brilliant to believe the arguments or points arising out of my mind. After all, I think Perry isn’t all that smart or principled, so to ask whether I’m just plain dumb is to answer it.

  • Addison

    Even if Perry’s position on immigration is what it’s most vehement detractors have portrayed, is that a deal-breaker? I think you really have to question whether all this intra-party conflict is worth it. Every single one of the GOP candidates has something that disqualifies them. Eventually there will have to be a choice about what matters and what doesn’t. Does health care matter more than immigration? Does global warming position matter more than foreign policy? Tear yourselves apart if you want, but realize that if you fight personality wars through policy proxies it’ll lead nowhere. Candidates are vehicles for you, not your best friends.

    Figure out which issue stances are “forgivable” and you’ll stop making excuses and start having a candidate pretty quickly.

  • levinfan90

    Alone, his softness on illegals isn’t a deal-breaker. Its that combined with everything else on his record which is the deal-breaker for me. For some conservatives Perry’s already unelectable because of this issue. But I think its fair to say that for most people who have blacklisted Perry, its this combined with his fiscal record, croynism, the HPV fiasco, his letter to Hillary supporting her healthcare plan in ’93, his letter co-written with a Dem Governor in 2008 supporting the passing of a ‘financial recovery package’ hours before the final vote on TARP, his acceptance of over $17 billion in Stimulus funds from Obama, his endorsing Giuliani in 2008, who was arguably the most liberal GOP candidate in the race, etc, etc, etc. It just goes on and on and on. Put it together and it sure looks like ‘big government run amok’, as Rick Santorum put it in the 2nd debate. He may be not as bad as Dick Durbin or Olympia Snowe or OBAMA, but if all we are looking for as our hope for the future is someone a little less bad than all of the other statists in power now, we have a really low standard.

    • gekster

      But thats not unusual with you.

  • levinfan90

    Hey gekster, you still haven’t lost your personal charm. Where’d ya pick it up from? Let me guess: Texas?

    • gekster

      I rest my case.

      • levinfan90

        Obviously its stupid to leave a comment when our discussion is literally right above the ‘leave comment’ space at the bottom of the page, which it was last night. You Perry fans are real sharp tools.

    • Addison

      nt

  • Adjoran

    Perry failed miserably in trying to defend it, though.

    The problem isn’t Perry as an Executive, although there is room to disagree with many of his decisions from a conservative point of view. The problem is that he isn’t able to quickly explain his policies in a positive fashion.

    Issues like the in-state tuition for illegals aren’t something that broke yesterday, either – that’s been around since about the time Perry entered the race, did he not think it would ever come up? This is how he prepares for an attack?

    Not sure I trust him to represent our side against Obama as a salesman.

    • gekster

      How do you cram everything about it in a minute

      • minister_of_war

        The veto would have taken less than one minute & Perry wouldn’t be having the problem with it that he is now.

        One minute or less.

        • minister_of_war

          Let’s point our fingers everywhere else (including the clock). But we won’t point a finger at Perry who had the terrible answer on in-state tuition for illegal aliens.

    • minister_of_war

      It’s not amnesty. Call it “comprehensive immigration reform.”

      It’s no longer global warming. Call it “climate change.”

      It’s not gay marriage. It’s “marriage equality.”

      I could go on & on. But that sounds like what you wish Perry would have done better. You just wish that he would have repackaged a liberal position in a way that sounds better.

      The problem is that while liberals use emotional arguments for everything, conservatives use logical arguments for everything. That’s probably why his “You must be completely heartless unless you support the in-state tuition breaks of these poor victim illegal alien children” line didn’t work.

      (Okay, I know I was exaggerating a bit with the quote. But not much really.)

  • http://dailynorseman.com tedglover

    And to cast all of those who he thinks are heartless for disagreeing with him is ridiculous.

    If there is a kid that comes here illegally with his parents, I understand it’s not that child’s fault, but that doesn’t mean that kid should be accorded the benefits of US citizenship without having gone through the legal process to do so. That’s not heartless, it’s simply wanting the laws of this country obeyed and followed.

    I was a tenuous Perry supporter to begin with, but now I’m done with him.

  • boonerdan

    ILLEGAL is illegal! This “touchy-feely” approach to not offending anyone and everyone is why we are on this high-speed rail of decline. Either the law is the law for everyone, or it is the law for NO ONE!

    Personally, I think you should prove citizenship to even attend a publicly funded college. These schools are being supported by our tax money. You want my children and grandchildren to compete for admission and space against people that aren’t even citizens of this country?

    If the 10th Amendment meant anything anymore, I wouldn’t care how Texas bends over its citizens and taxpayers. BUT, Mr. Perry now wants to be President, so I do have an opinion.

    I was beginning to warm to his campaign. Not anymore. He is making things easier for me though. He has now joined Romney on my list of candidates I will NEVER vote for.

    • acat

      Seriously. You’re choosing to blame Perry for a problem created by Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, etc. etc.

      Mew

      • electroncollector

        I blame him because he is another politician adding to the problem.

        • acat

          I’m seeing a lot of throwing {mud} at Perry without specifics. What *specifically* did he endorse, sign off on, or promote that you object to, and on what conservative grounds do you object?

          Mew

      • defenseconservative

        … order Perry to give privileges (tuition discounts) to illegal aliens?

        • gekster

          How do they pay less than any other Texas resident.

          • defenseconservative

            Not less than other Texas residents, but they had no right to be in Texas, and they pay less than US citizens who live outside Texas. The Texas DREAM Act proved that Perry (and the RINOs in the Texas state legislature) care more about illegal aliens (who have no right to even be on US soil) than of American citizens who live outside Texas.

            I know who Perry is. I lived in Texas for many years, I was born there, I served there, and I can tell you that Perry is a scoundrel, a Democrat in disguise, and a RINO who will utterly discredit the Republican Party. I’m embarrassed to admit that I actually voted for him once (for Lt. Gov.). But I won’t make that mistake again.

          • acat

            You’re simply blaming him for the sins of Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc. etc.

            The border’s been open a lot longer than Rick Perry has been alive. Saying that the Governor of Texas should fix this is missing the mark badly.

            Regarding your last paragraph, please let us all know who your current top four candidates are, what about them you like, and whether you would vote for Perry in the general if he wins the nomination.

            In the interest of fairness, my top four, in alphabetical order, are Cain – because he’s a solid conservative outsider, Perry – because he’s a seasoned executive, Romney – because he’s an executive and has a fiscal brain, and Bachmann, because she’s not Ron Paul.

            I will not vote for nor will I support Ron Paul in any way, should he win the nomination.

            Mew

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            how dare you suggest that Ron Paul doesn’t deserve our general election vote… {foaming}….{seething}…{faked outrage}…

            how’d I do?

          • defenseconservative

            “You?re simply blaming him for the sins of Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc. etc.”

            No, I’m not. I’m blaming him for their sins. I’m blaming him for a sin of his own: giving discounts to illegal aliens that American citizens who have committed no crime (other than living in a state other than Texas) do not enjoy. That is unacceptable under any circumstances. I don’t care if they constitute 1%, 10%, or 100% of Texas college students. They have no right to be in the US, let alone enjoy any discounts. He should’ve turned them over to the INS/USCIS, not give them discounts.

            “Regarding your last paragraph, please let us all know who your current top four candidates are, what about them you like,”

            I’m not fond of any of the current GOP candidates, but if I had to choose my top 4, they would be (in no particular order): Gingrich (who is a great debater), Cain (whose business record is not even up for discussion, although I don’t like his 9-9-9 plan), Bachmann (a fierce conservative, although she sometimes makes unrealistic pledges), and Santorum (so far, the only person who has dared to question the saintly Uncle Paul).

            “and whether you would vote for Perry in the general if he wins the nomination.”

            I answered that question in my previous comment. I will never again vote for Perry for any office, not even dog catcher, not even against B. Hussein Obama. Similarly, if the GOP nominates Ron “Blame America First” Paul or Gary “Abortion On Demand” Johnson, I will likewise not vote for them.. Better a Congressionally-constrained Hussein than any of these three guys.

            If you’re wondering why I’m saying that, here’s my answer: I’m a lifelong Conservative republican. Note which word is capitalized in the previous sentence. You should also know that although I’ve lived in Texas for most of my life prior to 2001, I have never voted for anyone whose last name was Bush for any office (except coincidentally for VP, when I voted for Reagan).

            I repeat, just in case I didn’t say it clear enough the previous time: Perry will never again get my vote for any office, whether in the primary or the general election.

          • acat

            You’re impersuasably unwilling to vote for Perry. Fine.

            If he’s the nominee and Obama wins, however, I will blame your intransigence.

            Mew

          • tommyfrisco

            Acat,
            Please don’t misjudge me. Ron Paul is way down on my list of who I hope wins the GOP nomination, but PLEASE don’t say you will not vote for him if he were to win the nomination. PLEASE consider the alternative. Your comments show a lot of wisdom that many others have begun to respect. This is one comment, however, that I hope everyone else will ignore.

            BTW, I think all of Gov. Perry’s problems are a result of him allowing his heart to make many of his decisions while Governor of Texas. GWB confused many of us with his “compassionate conservatism.” I think the phrase is like an oxymoron. In politics, conservatism represents strict adherence to the Constitution. Compassion is what drives us to contribute to a charitable organization.

            What we need is a GOP candidate that has the wisdom to understand the limits that the Consittution places on our government and why the government should be limited…and how we, the people, should do the things that the Government is prohibited from being involved in, such as caring for our fellow man, even those in our country illegally.

            We should not have a government that encourages illegal activities such as illegal immigration or gun-runnning. We should not have a government that discriminates, such as with affirmative action. We should not have a government, at the state or federal level, telling us that we have to purchase health care insurance.

          • gekster

            The state has no rights to deport them.
            The feds won’t deport them.
            Just what is your plan to deal with them.
            And the last I heard is that there are 2.1 million of them.

          • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

            They get in-state tuition in Texas. Let them go to school there.

            I don’t need a POTUS who says I don’t “have a heart” if I don’t agree with it.

            Let him stay in Texas and make that garnage work there.

  • mdavt

    My rule on this is simple: NO ENCOURAGEMENT.
    We should have no policies that encourage or provide any kind of inducement for aliens to sneak into this country. None.
    Our policies should make it as difficult and uncomfortable as possible to be an illegal alien. This Texas policy does not pass that test.

    • izoneguy

      N/t

      • onemovoter

        the following link I found on just SOME of the actual immigration laws.

        http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/ilink/?vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&SC=/ilink/docView/PUBLAW/HTML/PUBLAW/0-0-0-10948.html

        mdavt read that and then get back to us here at Redstate… Mk?

        • izoneguy

          Even Santorium has a problem understanding the laws that he helped pass while in Congress.

          Perry needs to do a better job in explaining what is in his book “Fed Up”.

          The pundits and the other candidates seem to have no problem in being critical of what Texas does.

          Yet they don’t understand that many of the problems Texas has are caused by the Fed. Santorium says the issue of the in-state tuition for illegals is the magnet that that draws millions to Texas. 16,000 students or 1% of all college students use the Texas Dream Act program. It is a small part in a larger puzzle. Most fail to realize the Feds mandate many things for the states to do when it come to illegals. States are required to provide emergency health services to all people (the illegals use the emergency room as their health provider). States are paying to keep illegals in prison. States have to pay for the education of illegals in K-12….it goes on and on.

          Rick Perry did bill the Feds for $340 Million to help house the illegal prison population.

          The real problem starts at the top and rolls downhill. Until the Federal Government is ready to tackle the issue of illegals then people like Rick Santorium, Michelle Bachmann and Mitt Romney – do not have a leg to stand on when it come to this issue.

          • Scope

            for sticking with Perry, I never saw you as one that would fold easily unless there were very good reasons to do so. I obviously was very disappointed in Perry’s debate performance, but was close to throwing up all day yesterday when I started reading the comments of those gloating, and quick to shout I told you so. They were never in Perry’s camp to begin with. What really made me the most sick, is those that are now claiming that because of Perry’s debate performance, they are now going over to the Romney camp. Some creepy guy on Fox yesterday morning literally was in joy because Romney “looked and acted” presidential. I can’t tell you how many times I heard people giving Romney high points and accolades for style, even though much of what he said was newly manufactured or outright BS. I pulled up a transcript of the entire debate, and read it with no audience reactions, no facial expressions, and no freaking word clouds, and costume attired Hollywood qualified You tubes starz. I just wanted to read the words. For anyone who care to read the transcript it gives one a whole different prospective on the debate. I said before the debate that I didn’t expect much knowing Chris Wallace was going to be one of the moderators, and I was correct. Look at the number of times Wallace sets up his questions to Bachmann and Romney with citing something negative that Perry had said in the past, and then proceeds to give them free rein to attack Perry. With Bachmann, he brought up the Gardasil issue again, and gave her reason to go after him on the issue yet again, and she didn’t miss the opportunity to bring up the crony capitalism charges against him yet again. On the right side of the screen, I saw a tweet that said it was an 8 on 1 roast. To that I would add the moderators who joined in. Not sure I’ve ever seen such a gang up, from so many directions, on one candidate before.

          • izoneguy

            Rick Perry is…..

            Rick will come back. He was trying to be a gentleman with
            his fellow Republicans. Rick will take the gloves off,
            drink an energy drink and go whoop some ass.

          • pttx333

            ,,,

          • pttx333

            I will stick with him and not go wherever the wind might take me – like it appears to have done with a lot of other folks. I was also terribly disappointed with the debate and the Fox moderators, particularly Chris Wallace. He is his father’s son all right. The entire debate was disjointed with too many people on stage, too much moderator bias, etc. The pile-on for Perry was, IMHO, was unprecedented and unacceptable.

            We are very early in the campaign and much can happen between now and voting. I do smell something wickedly afoot in the entire process as far as the Republican process has been going. Too much rancor, too much power/money in too many corners – you know what I’m talking about. Romney, in my view, is nothing more than a very wealthy habitual campaigner with nothing else to do. I still see snake oil there.

            I’m in this for the long haul, Scope. There is no flip-flopping with me. We will get over our sick tummies and go forward. Okay?

          • Scope

            I’ve wanted so much, for the longest time to believe you can win an election for any office without having the biggest bank account. I look at the Chafetz race for the House back a few years ago. His entire campaign, against a moderate R incumbent I believe, cost him $500K. In today’s elections, that’s not very much. Now I am seeing what Romney’s deep pockets are actually buying him, and it ain’t just some TV ads, if you know what I mean. It’s disgraceful how many will do anything for money. That’s just a guess, but I think an accurate one. Hopefully Perry’s numbers will be up there. I heard Perry won over some of Romney’s deep pockets in CA.

          • pttx333

            Unfortunately, we live in a very unholy, greedy world where money can buy most anything or anyone. Isn’t that just the tragedy of it all? Yep, I know precisely what you mean about certain deep pockets, and we are seeing them reap positive results. All I can see is that we must pray for some of those folks to get their heads out of their collective arses and DO THE RIGHT THING for a change. I was brought up to believe that you should always do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. But I certainly know there are many D.C. wannabe folks and folks that are already there who have no such moral code.

            Hooray for some of the deep pockets in CA! Hadn’t heard of that but sure am happy about it. We are sunk as a beautiful, wonderful nation if we don’t get this right. Our very survival is at stake – it is definitely make or break time with no do-overs.

          • Scope

            RWM’s post with comparing all of the candidates to those you may date. The way I took her Perry comparison was he may not be the splashiest guy, or the one who takes you on some world wind romance, but he is the one who is steady, there, and always dependable. That really struck home with me.

          • pttx333

            Perry is the one you would/could take home to Mama and not be ashamed. Maybe not the best dancer, but the one who is rock solid, never wavering, and the one who would stand by you even if you were in a wheelchair. As for the smooth-talking dudes, FUGGEDABOWDIT! They are the go-with-the-flow guys who aren’t worth the powder to blow them to hell in the long haul. There is no THERE there.

          • pttx333

            as a smarmy little dweeb that people avoid – you know the type I mean. He is just another one that I’ve never warmed up to, along with a few of the others – Romney, Paul, Huntsman, Bachmann, et al.

            I’m in there for Perry till the bitter end, but will vote for whomever the nominee is only to get b.o. and his thugs out of D.C.

          • Scope

            I’ve in some cases actually defended him in the past. I do believe he has some good foreign policy knowledge, and is strong on fighting the terrorists. I will never defend him again after his insane, rude, obnoxious attack on Perry at the debate. He wouldn’t even let Perry answer the question, he kept trying to talk over him, and kept interrupting him, wanting Perry to answer his question that Perry was trying to answer. One of the moderators finally stopped him, but allowed him to go on for much longer than should have been allowed. Some are giving him credit for that unnecessary and rude outburst. Who woulda thunk someone who can’t get above 2% in the polls would be so aggressively attacking the front runner, as though he could knock Perry off his pedestal. It was funny though when Perry finally ignored him like he was a flea and just kept talking.

          • Scope

            the debate field down to those who have gotten 5% and above in the 30 days prior to the debate. Goodbye Santorum, Huntsman, Johnson and probably a few more.

          • pttx333

            occurred to you that perhaps it is done intentionally to muddy the waters even further? It has occurred to me – and it is certainly working to our detriment! I still smell really funky stuff in the air!

          • Scope

            It was odd that Fox decided at the last minute to include Gary Johnson. It is getting more and more obvious that the Republicans can’t even count on one TV channel now, Fox. Is it my imagination, or have they been hiring more and more liberals? And yes, the more idiotic candidates there are on the stage, the more the left believes they can prove themselves right that the Republicans are the “dumb” party.

          • pttx333

            a long time. First it was O’Reilly, then Hannity and Greta – never did like Shep Smith. And Geraldo – UGH – NEVER liked him from way back when. Talk about smarmy! Yep, I agree with you totally on the hiring of more and more liberals – or so it seems to me. There was a time when the Fox channel was always on in my house but no more. I do like Bret Baier, Brit Hume and the early morning folks, but that is about it these days. So that sorta leaves us stuck with getting at least 98% of reliable news from the ‘net. And that is fine with me. Where else can we go these days???

            I still don’t understand the Gary Johnson addition! Where in the h-e-l-l did he come from? It HAS to be collusion, there is no other explanation for the extremely crowded stage. And, yep, we are looking pretty damn dumb right about now. That is also strictly by design, and we both know it, huh.

          • pttx333

            Yeppers, that is the smarmy dweeb side of him that is just disgusting. I’ve seen it in him before, and it is such a turn off. He still reminds me of some of the goofballs in high school who tried so hard to be all macho and cool, and it was so off-putting. He is precisely like a flea or a gnat or a mosquito flying around and you’re trying your best to swat it and go elsewhere. He is a major barf alert to me. He needs to be off the stage with a few of the others, IMHO.

          • defenseconservative

            Can’t stand the criticism of your favorite candidate? Please. Rick Perry is a RINO, and his policy on tuition discounts for illegal aliens is decidedly un-conservative. Santorum seems to be the only guy to dare to call Perry out on this one, other than Romney, just like Santorum is, to date, the only guy who has ever dared to criticize Ron Paul for his insane foreign policy views.

            Rick Perry is a RINO and has no business running for the GOP nomination for any office, not even dog catcher.

          • gekster

            They don’t get no help paying, They have to pay thier own way.

            And Santorum showed that he has not read the bill and has no understanding of it.
            Kinda like you.

          • defenseconservative

            In Texas, as in other states, tuition fee rates are much lower for the state’s residents than for those who live outside the state.

            But illegal aliens were never supposed to even set foot on Texan soil, let alone to be allowed to remain on it and go to Texas college.

            Rick Perry has provided in-state tuition rates to people who have committed a very serious crime – illegal immigration – while levying out-of-state tuition rates on people who have committed no crime… other than living in a state other than Texas.

            So Rick Perry thinks more of criminals than of Americans who live outside Texas.

            True, they live outside Texas and don’t pay taxes in the Lone Star State. But they are American citizens. OTOH, illegal aliens were never supposed, and are not supposed, to set foot on US soil, so they should not be awarded in-state tuition rates. That is a huge discount.

          • gekster

            It’s your story.
            Make it as good as you want.

            Texas can’t kick them out, the feds won’t kick them out, and Texas by law must provide an education to them.

            So lets not give them a resident rate for an education that might help them get a better job and stay off the public dole.
            One which they have to pay for themselves.

            Lets not give them a chance to become a US citizen, and have an honest stake in the country, which I would believe the majority didn’t sneak across the border on thier own to come to, but were brought by thier parents.

            No, we should hold them accountable even though it may not have been thier choice to come here, but how many kids say Mom, Dad, you are going to the US illegally, and I won’t go because it would be breaking thier laws.

            So tell me, what do you do.
            I know, take that chance away, and let them do the low paying jobs, and they can stay on welfare, and free health care, which the courts have said that the state must provide.
            Let them take from the public and not contribute.

            We can’t let them get ahead in the world.
            Thier parents broke the law through no fault of thier own, and as such the sins of the father should be held against the son.

            And the arguement that once they turn 18, and are presumed adults they should be deported.
            Just what should they do now that they are in a foriegn land and have no basic ties to thier new country except maybe the same skin color and a familiar sounding name.
            Just how would you handle it.

            Texas found a bandage to a gapping wound, supported by 80 % of the citizens, 98% of the legislature, and signed by a Govenor who saw that it was what the people wanted.

            (the numbers are the best I can recall, and pretty close, if not accurate).

            (And Perry did what the legislature wanted, and people are yelling about it,
            but with the Gardasil thing, Perry did what the people didn’t want, and the same people are yelling about that. You can’t have it both ways).

          • Scope

            and having the facts and details correct is one thing but, both Romney and Santorum were both in error with their charges.

            Romney said “Four years of college, almost $100,000 in discounts if you are going to the Univ. of Texas. If you are a US citizen from any of the other 49 states, you have to pay $100,000. more.”

            The fact is that in order to qualify for the in-state tuition program, you have to have lived in Texas for at least 3 years prior to HS graduation, and you must have graduated from a Texas HS. For an out of state student to qualify for in-state tuition you need only reside in Texas for 11 months prior to the start of the college year. Therefore, if anything there is a discrimination against those qualifying for the in-state tuition rate via the Texas Dream Act. They must reside there longer than an out of state student, and they must graduate from a Texas HS.

            Santorum was equally as uneducated in his answer. He said that all illegal aliens can just up and get the in-state tuition rate no matter where they are coming from, completely distorting and mangling the requirements of the Texas Dream Act qualifications.

            I don’t even know why I’m bothering with you as you seem to have the same dysfunctional relationship with the truth, and the same willingness to just throw anything out there even if what you are saying is nothing more than misstatements, obfuscation, distortion, and outright lying about the facts as your man Mitt. You and Mitt seem to lack any understanding that most see right through your glass houses.

          • defenseconservative

            Of all your ridiculous accusations against me, this one is the most ridiculous and most laughable:

            “you seem to have the same dysfunctional relationship with the truth, and the same willingness to just throw anything out there even if what you are saying is nothing more than misstatements, obfuscation, distortion, and outright lying about the facts as your man Mitt. You and Mitt seem to lack any understanding that most see right through your glass houses.”

            Mitt Romney is not “my man” and has never been. I have never endorsed him, whether here or anywhere else. I am not a Romney supporter. Romney doesn’t give me a warm, fuzzy feeling. But I do know that if I were unfortunate enough to have to run in Massachusetts, I would have to say liberal things often, to keep MA voters happy.

            We don’t know if Romney is a RINO or not. He might be, or might not be. We don’t know.

            On the other hand, Rick Perry is a RINO, a scoundrel, and a Democrat in disguise, who changed his party affiliation for political convenience in 1989, but did not change his political views, and is still a moderate Democrat.

            You make excuses for Perry on the basis that there were certain qualifications for those illegal aliens wishing to utilize the Texas DREAM Act: graduating from a Texan High School, living in Texas at least 3 years prior to graduation, and applying for US citizenship. But it doesn’t matter, and you know why? Because illegal aliens are not supposed to receive ANY amnesty or ANY discounts of ANY kind. And they are NOT eligible to be US citizens, because they have not immigrated to the US LEGALLY. To be eligible to apply for naturalization, you have to live in the US LEGALLY for 5 years (3 years if you’ve been married to a US citizen). ILLEGAL ALIENS are supposed to be deported, not rewarded with citizenship.

            You are defending a RINO scoundrel who has implemented an un-conservative, liberal policy. Therefore, I am hardly the RINO defender here.

            And please spare me your lectures. I am a native of Texas and lived there for most of my life before 2001, before moving to Arizona and later to Virginia. I know Perry better than you ever will. Also, you should note that I am a lifelong Conservative republican. Note which word is capitalized in the previous sentence. Although I’ve lived in Texas for almost all of my life before 2001, I can proudly say that I have never voted, for any office, for anyone whose last name was Bush (except coincidentally for VP, when I voted for Reagan). I’m embarrassed to admit that I voted for Rick Perry once, for Lt. Gov. But I won’t make that mistake again.

          • gekster

            “But I do know that if I were unfortunate enough to have to run in Massachusetts, I would have to say liberal things often, to keep MA voters happy.”

            So you are stating that he will say what is needed to make the voters happy.
            Not stick to core principles,
            but say what is needed to be said,
            to appease voters.

            Hasn’t that been 75% of the complaints against him.

          • defenseconservative

            Where do you live? Probably not a blue state.

            I can assure you that if you were unfortunate enough to live in, and run for office in, a blue state like MA or CA, you would also be singing the Democrats’ tune most of the time. You would be trying to get conservative policies actually enacted, whenever you could, but in terms of what you SAY, you’d be singing the Dems’ hymnal most of the time.

            A Republican holding a statewide office in MA would have just as hard a time surviving politically as a Democrat holding statewide office in Texas… if there was one.

            What matters, however, is what people do, not what the say.

            And here’s the biggest difference between Romney and Perry.

            Romney was a Republican in a liberal state, and yet, he managed to implement several conservative policies, like balancing the state budgets with spending cuts and without tax hikes, vetoing tons of wasteful spending, and turning the state’s economy around in terms of jobs growth.

            Perry is a RINO running one of the most conservative states in the country who hiked state spending by a whopping 55% in real terms (34% above the combined rates of infl. and pop. growth), has repeatedly hiked taxes, and tried to perpetrate what would have been the biggest eminent-domain land-grab in US history, the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway. Even now, he still says that the NAFTA Superhighway is not dead and that it will be built – just as a series of separate projects rather than one big projects. He stills to bring in a Spanish company to the US to send toll revenues to Spain – NOT Texas.

            Perry will never get my vote for any office.

          • Scope

            contridicting yourself. You give Romney more than a little wiggle room because he was a Republican governing in a blue state, therefore saying and doing liberal things is not only OK, but required to survive election or re-election. Then you knock Perry because he signed a law that was passed by a Dem. controlled legislature, and which had only 4 dissenting votes against it. You can’t have it both ways just because your hatred of one is visceral while you give the real proven RINO a pass.

          • defenseconservative

            Perry could’ve vetoed that law. The Dem-controlled legislature might’ve overriden his veto, but I don’t think it would – it would risk angering the people of Texas if it did that. I would expect any governor and any president to veto such legislation.

            Romney is not a “real proven RINO”. He might be a RINO or not (although I doubt he is). We can’t be sure as of now. He accomplished several good things as Governor of MA, while also doing some bad things like advocating and signing a socialized medicine bill into law.

            But Perry was (and still is) the governor of a conservative state, while Romney had to govern the most liberal state of the Union. Romney faced a far more hostile environment and delivered better results. That is a fact that you have abysmally failed to disprove.

            I don’t trust Romney, but I don’t loathe him either. I just don’t know him well enough to like or dislike him.. OTOH, I know Perry better than you, gekster, or cat (or most Americans, for that matter) ever will, and I can assure you that the last thing this country needs is yet another RINO like Bush.

          • gekster

            out of a 181 member legislature, 4 votes were no.
            If he had vetoed it, it would have been over ridden.

          • minister_of_war

            Why was he forced to sign a terrible bill even if only 4 brave souls in the Texas Legislature dared to vote against it?

            Perry should have vetoed the bill, let the Legislature attempt to override his veto & be counted as landing on the right side of this issue. It sure wouldn’t be hurting him today if Perry had taken this courageous stand.

            But from Perry’s own words, he didn’t elect not to veto this bill because he had overwhelming numbers in the Texas Legislature in favor of this terrible bill, he actually signed this bill because if a Governor doesn’t sign such a bill, the Governor would obviously not have a heart.

          • gekster

            He doesn’t vetoe a bill that is very popular in his state at the time (2001)
            and gets flak from some here for doing it.
            He did what the people wanted.

            Now to compare, Obama signs a bill, healthcare, and gets flak for not going with the will of the people.
            He didn’t do what the people wanted.

            (not comparing healthcare to TDA, but an elected leader going for and against the will of the people).

            Did I get that right? Am I missing something.

          • minister_of_war

            … and that’s where you make the assumption that this was a “very popular” bill in the State of Texas. My guess is that nobody ran ads saying, if you vote for me, I will make sure that children of illegal aliens get in-state tuition in Texas. My guess is that in most Texas legislative districts, if they did run ads like this, they probably wouldn’t have been elected.

            But I could be wrong, if you have the polling data showing that this is a very popular bill in Texas & that it was very popular at the time it was rammed down the throat of Texas citizens & legal immigrants I’d love to see it & I will concede the popularity point to you.

          • gekster

            I recall reading that it was 80% popular with the citizens, but I will try to find the article I read it on.
            I’ve read so many articles on the law, well, I’ll see what I can find.
            from:
            http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/U-S-should-follow-Texas-and-pass-the-DREAM-Act-1718151.php

            excerpt:
            The law is both successful and popular because it reduces dropouts, encourages access to college and comes at little expense to the state.

          • minister_of_war

            … not exactly the best source to prove your point. And two points in rebuttal to him, one it’s the ‘Houston Chronicle”, who used to join the chorus & refer to former Democrat Texas Governor Ann Richards as the “very popular Governor Ann Richards”. It used to annoy me how the Chronicle & other Texas media always had to preface Ann Richards that way – not that I was surprised – but they made it out like Ann Richards’s first name was actually “the very popular” because not a single article was ever written about her without starting with those words. I remember how shocked they were when George W. Bush beat the “very popular Ann Richards” back in 1994. The Texas media couldn’t believe it & was beside itself.

            My second point is that once again Texas State Senator Rodney Ellis who wrote that op-ed is a very partisan liberal Democrat. Just check out his voting record – if the (D) after his name isn’t enough for you.

          • gekster

            I’m still trying to find the numbers I had.
            But I will give you that.

          • gekster

            You said he will say what is needed to please the voters.
            Not stand on principles.

            And for info, I live in Michigan.
            You know, the blue state that elected a Republican Govenor who said what he was going to do if he got elected, and is doing what he said.

          • defenseconservative

            You need to remember, however, that Rick Perry also says what he believes he needs to say to please voters. The difference, however, is that Romney, serving as Governor in a liberal state, was saying liberal things but doing conservative things most of the time. Perry, serving in a conservative state, has been saying conservative things but doing liberal things.

            And THAT is the difference I was talking about.

          • acat

            Perry didn’t mandate all Texans buy health insurance. That was Mitt.
            Perry didn’t appoint D judges and sign off on abortion funding. That was Mitt.
            Perry didn’t change his position on global warming. That was also Mitt.

            Both men are imperfect. I haven’t heard that Gabriel or Michael or Coburn* are running, though, so we’re kind of stuck.

            Follow up question to you. Of the declared candidates, plus Jeb Bush, Sarah Palin, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, and Paul Ryan, who are your top four?

            Mew

          • defenseconservative

            … including “military adventurism”, Afghanistan, secession, running for President, and the Gardasil mandate.

            Coburn is an anti-defense libertarian. He will never get my vote for any office, not even dog catcher, not even against B. Hussein.

            As for the last question, my top four of those would probably be (in no particular order) Cain, Gingrich, Paul Ryan, and Santorum (albeit I don’t really trust him – I fear he’s a single issue candidate).

          • acat

            We’ve been over several of Waffles Romney’s flips, perhaps you can post some links to Perry’s that you’ve mentioned here.

            I don’t think Gingrich is a conservative, I think he’s an opportunist who used the popularity of conservatism to flip the House. I do think he’s the smartest guy on the stage.

            I agree that Santorum is a single-issue guy – social issues, specifically. They may have a role in the primary, but this general election is about a vision of the country, about socialism vs. capitalism, not about social issues.

            Paul Ryan would probably do okay, but he’s been on the national scene for a short time, and is from the House, so .. no executive experience. I like what I see, and would put him on the short list for OMB, for example.

            Herman Cain, I like. I don’t agree with him on every issue, but I could strongly support him on the principles we agree upon. Again, not a lot of executive government experience, but .. maybe that’s a good thing.

            Mew

          • Scope

            your thoughts about something, or anyone else that wants to reply.

            I’m not going to try to make excuses for Perry, and he certainly hasn’t either. Perry had spinal fusion surgery in early July. He’s been wearing a backbrace, and special shoes since. He has kept up a pretty bust schedule since entering the race in in Aug. According to this article he may have been having pain in the debate. We’ve seen him fade in the second half of all debates, and I’m wondering if he is having back pain. Again, I not making excuses for Perry’s debate performances. From what I’m reading, when you’ve had this type of back surgery, it is more comfortable to walk for hours, and painful to stand for 10 minutes. I wonder if he is in pain, or possibly has taken pain medication before the second hour. Someone else had mentioned this possibility on here before.

            Does anyone with back problems, or that have had bad surgery have any more knowledge with this? I can’t help but to remember those that know Perry have been very surprised at his performances.

          • acat

            My cousin who, in her youth, was a dancer, gymnast, and cheerleader, ruptured three disks in her lower back working as a manager in retail.

            Her doctors attribute it to bending over and picking up boxes of merchandise to restock 5 days a week for two years after her husband left.

            She had the vertabrae surgically fused, with titanium implants, so cannot bend much. She’s in constant pain, and will be for the rest of her life. She also sets off the metal detectors at the airport.

            I haven’t read what Perry had done but .. yeah. Walking keeps the spine in motion, the muscles stabilizing it changing with every step so no one muscle group does all the work. Standing, on the other hand, constantly stresses one group of muscles, and can cause pain over time.

            Maybe Perry should ask for a round table discussion?

            Mew

          • gekster

            If Romneys not in your top four, why are you shilling for him.

          • gekster

            from:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney

            Romney, in concert with the legislature, created new fees, doubled fees for court filings, professional regulations, marriage licenses, and firearm licenses, and increased fees for many state licenses and services. In all 33 new fees were created, and 57 fees were increased,

            Romney increased the state gasoline delivery fee by 2 cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue; raises the state gas tax to a total of 23 cents, compared to the national average of 28.6 cents per gallon

            Romney approved $128 million in tax changes such as sales tax from purchases on the Internet
            and raised another $181 million in additional business taxes in the next two years

            The state also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns.

            The state also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns. In response, cities and towns became more reliant on local revenue to pay for municipal services and schools. This had the effect of causing property taxes to rise by 5%, their highest level in 25 years in Massachusetts. In 2005, Romney signed legislation allowing local commercial property taxes to be raised, which resulted in $100 million more in property taxes from local business owners

            In 2002, the state passed a capital gains tax increase that was scheduled to take effect on May 1 of that year. A taxpayers’ group challenged the law in court, arguing that a tax increase must take effect at the beginning or end of a year, and in 2005 the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in their favor. The court held that the tax increase was effective beginning January 1, 2002, which effectively imposed an additional $200 million in “retroactive” state taxes on gains realized during the first four months of 2002. In response, the state legislature passed a bill moving the effective date of the tax increase to January 1, 2003. Romney signed the legislation and praised the legislature for its actions.

            Upon leaving office, Romney argued that he had left the state with a large budget surplus, after he cut hundreds of millions of dollars of programs. However, successor Governor Deval Patrick said there would be a $1 billion deficit if existing service levels are carried over into the next year’s budget. It would be Patrick who would propose the spending level of that budget. The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney’s governorship but still was below the national average. According to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, that per capita burden was 9.8 percent in 2002 (below the national average of 10.3 percent), and 10.5 percent in 2006 (below the national average of 10.8 percent).

            Like I said, only a sample, taxes are some of the voters bigest issues.

          • onemovoter

            Scope was rightly questioning your logic in your arguments. To turn around and call that name calling, well reminds me so much of what the liberals do to me on their blog sites when I call them out.

            The question we have for you is this. If the Texas dream act is contradicting federal law in dealing with illegals, then why hasn’t the federal government brought suit in the 10 years it’s been law?

            Why are there 9 other states besides Texas who have the same law on the books? This would seem like a chance the federal government to move to clear up this issue right? They did bring suit to SB1070, why not Texas?

          • defenseconservative

            I didn’t say that the Texas DREAM Act violates federal law, I said that it makes one requirement that illegal aliens are not able to fulfill (unless that requirement is considered a dead letter): obtaining US citizenship.

            Under current law, an ILLEGAL ALIEN is NOT eligible to apply for US citizenship at ANY time, no matter how long that person has lived in the US (unless that person has already taken advantage of an amnesty such as the 1986 IRCA or the now-expired Section 245(i), or by marrying a US citizen, which still, however, doesn’t ensure legalization).

            If that person has not adjusted his/her status to legal status, that means that the person is STILL living in the US illegally, not legally. Such person is NOT eligible to apply for US citizenship at any time, unless an amnesty legalizing that person is passed.

            Even if the pro-illegal-immigrant Texas DREAM Act was contrary to federal law, which it isn’t, I don’t think either the Jorge Bush Administration or the B. Hussein Obama Administration would question it in federal court. Obama questions only those laws that are designed to curb illegal immigration, like Arizona’s SB1070 (which would be very useful in Texas, BTW).

          • Scope

            Please read the requirements for citizenship right from the U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website In fact you have to have been a resident of the US for certain time periods in order to apply for citizenship.

          • defenseconservative

            with your own post.

            If you would actually bother to read the website you’ve posted the link to, you’ve would’ve known that you have to live in the US LEGALLY for 3 or 5 years in order to be eligible to apply for US citizenship, as well as meet other requirements. I know, because my wife is a naturalized US citizen and she had to go through this procedure.

            And that’s exactly what I’ve been saying all along: you have to live in the US LEGALLY for designated periods of time (5 years, or 3 years if you’ve been married to a US citizen) in order to be allowed to apply for citizenship.

            I never claimed that S. 245(i) made anyone eligible for citizenship per se. I said that it allowed those who were in the US LEGALLY when S. 245(i) applied (i.e. in 2000) to legalize their status, but not yet to become eligible for citizenship.

            Once again you make false accusations against me and lecture me about issues you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about. You would be well advised not to run your informed mouth again.

          • defenseconservative

            Spl: should be “uninformed mouth”. I’m typing too fast.

          • Scope

            I responded to your charge that Romney and Santorum both had the big guts to go after Perry in the debate, and provided my facts about their erroneous charges against Perry. I supplied facts to debunk your approval of their charges and showed them to be uninformed and outright false. You don’t come back and debate the facts, because you can’t ,but rather use your comment space to further cite your hatred of Perry, again with nothing but personal opinions and observations. It is true I have never lived in Texas, however one is not required to live in a particular state in order to read that states laws, and accurately interpret their meaning. Just because folklore states that Santa Claus lives in the north pole, with his workshops full of busy toy making elves doesn’t mean that mom and dad aren’t the ones putting those toys under the Christmas tree.

            I’m still waiting for your link to the 1990 Immigration Act that removes any government entity from being required to educate aliens, legal or illegal. I’m sure that you will just utilize the comment space to further demonize that hateful liberal RINO Rick Perry. That is your only purpose for being here.

          • defenseconservative

            Instead of debunking my arguments – which you have abysmally failed to do – you are making further ridiculous, groundless accusations, including the oen that my sole purpose of commenting here is “demonizing Perry”. No, it isn’t. As my nickname might suggest to intelligent people (but clearly not to you), I am here first and foremost to comment on defense issues. Sadly, I don’t see any posts related to such issues here, so I will have to write them myself.

            Also, I never said that Santorum and Romney were great for “having the guts to go after Perry”. I originally wrote nothing but a question:

            “When did any of these Presidents
            ? order Perry to give privileges (tuition discounts) to illegal aliens?”

            Not a word about Santorum or Romney. In fact, a few posts earlier, I tried to assure you not to worry about Santorum, because he will be a former candidate by the end of this year.

            And it’s not really possible to demonize Rick Perry any more than it’s possible to demonize Barack Obama or Lyndon LaRouche. All three of them are strident liberals.

          • Scope

            with links that prove the facts I have cited. You have done absolutely nothing but play word games, make false accusations against what I have said, and you just keep throwing crap against the wall with your obvious unwillingness to hold to factual information, or provide anything to back up your assertions.

            It is a personal opinion to say what you have against Perry, and that is all it is is personal opinion. I have correctly stated that you are here to do nothing more than utilize comment space to further vent your deeply seated hatred against Rick Perry.

            I never had any illusions that I would change your mind about Perry in any way, as I never did put much faith in the idea that there is a fine line between love and hate. You prove my way of thinking correct yet once again.

            Until you start coming back with factual links for many of your already proven false statements, and actually stick to those debatable issues, you are not worth giving the encouragement to simply fill more comment space with your nothing more than Perry vents. Facts are those pesky little things that trip some of the best up, opinions are a dime a dozen, and I’m not interested in your opinions.

          • defenseconservative

            with your own post.

            If you would actually bother to read the website you’ve posted the link to, you’ve would’ve known that you have to live in the US LEGALLY for 3 or 5 years in order to be eligible to apply for US citizenship, as well as meet other requirements. I know, because my wife is a naturalized US citizen and she had to go through this procedure.

            And that’s exactly what I’ve been saying all along: you have to live in the US LEGALLY for designated periods of time (5 years, or 3 years if you’ve been married to a US citizen) in order to be allowed to apply for citizenship.

            I never claimed that S. 245(i) made anyone eligible for citizenship per se. I said that it allowed those who were in the US LEGALLY when S. 245(i) applied (i.e. in 2000) to legalize their status, but not yet to become eligible for citizenship.

            Once again you make false accusations against me and lecture me about issues you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about. You would be well advised not to run your uninformed mouth again.

          • defenseconservative

            You’ve merely been making one false accusation after another. You’re now discrediting yourself further by continuing to claim that I’m commenting here SOLELY to diss Perry, which is a blatant lie given that 1) I’ve commented here on a variety of issues 2) I’ve criticized several candidates other than Perry here, some as harshly as Perry.

            www.redstate.com/users/defenseconservative/

            Just like all other claims of yours, this claim is a blatant lie. You discredit yourself with every screed you post here.

          • defenseconservative

            In 1990, the Congress passed a law that prohibits any amount of money – local, state, or federal – to be spent on educating aliens, legal or illegal. So your claim is clearly false.

          • Scope

            I just read the 1990 Immigration Act (IMMACT), and there is not the first word about spending on educating aliens in it all. The law mainly addressed the number of immigrants the US would admit legally, and by what means. If you have any portion of that law that states that “the law prohibits any amount of money-local, state, or federal-to be spent on educating aliens, legal or illegal” please provide a link to that portion of the law.

            In 1982 the SC in Plyler v. Doe, the justices ruled that all “humans” are to receive a “free” education in K-12 without respect to their legal status. The state of Texas wanted to charge illegal Mexican students tuition for their K-12 education, as means of stopping the flow of illegal mexicans into the state. The SC denied their ability to do so. To date I am unaware of any Congressional legislation that has overturned that ruling.

  • Scope

    From the Aug. 11, 2011 Ames Iowa GOP debate- (little more than a month ago)

    Q. In 2008, you said you favored allowing American companies to hire more skilled foreign workers. With unemployment at 9.1%, are you still for importing more foreign labor?

    A. Well, of course not. We’re not looking to bring people in for jobs that can be done by Americans. But at the same time, we want to make sure that America welcomes the best and the brightest in the world. If someone comes here and gets a PhD” in physics, that’s the person I’d like to staple a green card to their diploma, rather than saying to them go home.

    “That’s the person I’d like to staple a green card to their diploma.”

    Yet he has the nerve to attack Perry because his state passed a veto proof bill to allow children of illegal immigrants the ability to pay in state tuition.
    ——————————————-

    In a November 2005 interview with the Boston Globe, he described immigration reform proposal advanced by McCain as “reasonable.” He now denounces it as an “amnesty plan.” In 2006, he signed an agreement authorizing state troopers to round up illegal immigrants.

    As Perry said in the debate, which Mitt Romney will show up tomorrow? Romney has the nerve to try to paint Perry as a flip-flopper, and deflect his own serious problem away from himself. Perry has not flip-flopped, but you have taken it to an art. Flipp-Flopp-Flitt
    —————————————

    From the Reagan Library debate, Jan. 30, 2008

    Q. You said that for a lot of illegal immigrants who are here, under your plan, we could deport many of them within 90 days. How could we do it that quickly?

    A. My plan is this, which is for those that have come here illegally and are here illegally today, no amnesty. Now, how do people return home? Under the ideal setting, at least in my view, you say to those who have just come in recently, we’re going to send you back home immediately, we’re not going to let you stay here. You just go back home. For those that have been here, let’s say, five years, and have kids in school, you allow kids to complete the school year, you allow people to make their arrangements, and allow them to return back home. Those that have been here a long time, with kids that have responsibilities here and so forth, you let stay long enough to organize their affairs and go home.”

    I’m not even sure what the heck this all means. You can stay until your kids finish school, and you take care of your responsibilities, and then you can start making preparations and plans to go home??? Is there a little bit of “heart” in their Mitt? Yet you mock and ridicule Perry’s (certainly unnecessary) choice of words in the debate, when you have said similar things yourself. Also, do you think they will just walk back across the border, and go home? Flipp-Flopp Flitt.
    —————————————

    Romney ran an ad on Nov. 1, 2007 in Iowa and NH-

    “We all know that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats have it all wrong on illegal immigration. Our party should not make that mistake. As Governor, I authorized the State Police to enforce immigration laws. I opposed driver’s licenses and in-state tuition for illegal aliens.”

    Fact Check- Romney claims in his TV ad that he put state troopers on the trail of illegals in his state. But he didn’t do that until he had less than a month left in his term. He was already considering running for president, and the new governor-elect was expected to rescind the arrangement, which Patrick did within the first week of his administration.

    Flipp-Flopp Flitt

    • izoneguy

      Mitt Romney’s stance on illegals sounds like his stance on SS.

      The status quo.

      Lets change Federal laws to end the mandates on states to supply
      illegals – health care and K-12 education. Those are the real “magnets”
      that draw illegals. Then each state can decide if it wants to spend money
      on illegals or not, instead of the Feds mandating that they do so.

      So, repeal ObamaCare and abolish the Dept. of Education as a start.

      • izoneguy

        So Mr. Perry – when the issue of in-state tuition come up again –
        Don’t answer the question – deflect to “Let’s talk about the Federal Government ending the mandate on states to supply illegals health care and K-12 education.”

        • onemovoter

          That’s a big issue Perry has and is a theme of his Fedup book.

    • acat

      Not much fun in flogging that dead horse, ‘s already been made into paste and used to seal thousands of envelopes containing donations to other candidates.

      But you’re right. Romney waffled on immigration, just like everything else.

      Mew

      • Scope

        is because he is attacking Perry for some of the same views he has had yesterday, and maybe will have again tomorrow. It seems unbelievable to me that some have selective amnesia on his past words, or they are just doing the same as Romney in deflecting one of Romney’s biggest problems off onto Perry now. Look at the comments posted here from some who say they are against Perry’s immigration stance, and are now going over to Romney. As you’ve said before, none so blind as he who will not see.

  • calfcreek

    I get so tired of unthoughtful policy. We must quit presuming that we can do anything in government without someone getting hurt. Someone always gets hurt. The choice is who? In this case: Good law-abiding citizen students get turned away from Texas colleges every semester. For every ILLEGAL going to college, there is a LEGAL citizen or immigrant who does NOT get to attend.
    So who did Rick Perry decide to hurt? LEGAL citizens and immigrants.
    And he calls us “Heartless”.
    What do you call someone who hurts his own fellow LEGAL citizens and immigrants, to protect ILLEGAL immigrants?
    Not just heartless, but evil, stupid and LIBERAL.

    • gekster

      Any sites to prove that.
      Can you show any actual statistics for that claim.

      • nepanyrush

        This is common sense. UT has 29,500 applicants in 2009. 44% were accepted. 56% of applicants did not get into UT. If 100 illegal aliens were accepted, then 100 other people did not get in. Of course the children of law-abiding citizens are losing out on opportunities to get into the college of their choice. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but why you would challenge the poster on this rather obvious point is hard to understand. Our own children, who are Hispanic (but legal) certainly got rejected from a number of universities.

        (My wife, by the way, who is Hispanic, but came to this country legally — she did not speak a word of English when she arrived — finds it ridiculous that children of illegal aliens get to pay in-state tuition. To her, it is perplexing that if they are illegal, why are they not paying the same as citizens from another nation. If her relatives want to send a child to the US, they have to pay out-of-state. Of course, my wife is a rarity — an Hispanic who is a committee women for the GOP.)

        • gekster

          Can you show me what % did not pass the exam.

          • gekster

            if they have been in Texas for three years, they qualify for instate.

    • Scope

      any links, sources, reports that you have used to determine that any legal students were refused admission to any Texas college because the slots were taken by illegal students. If you can’t provide backup for your charge, you are are doing nothing more than engaging in the liberal practice of lies and spin.

    • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

      Right out of the lefty playbook.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      Anyone that wants to go to college can go to college…

      It’s not like UT of Austin is Ivy League dude… (Sorry UT fans, living in Oklahoma will bring this side out of a person)….

      Where do people come up with these superlative statements? Seriously…

      If you can’t go to college in America, you’re either unwilling to get a loan or grant, or better yet a scholarship… Shop around…. we have a hell of a market of universities, colleges, and institutions that will give you a degree or certificate….

      Education on the other hand, begins with a person’s curiosity, and a determination to learn. IT’S NOT A RIGHT… IT’S SOMETHING YOU EARN.

      I have no problem with Perry’s action here… he was thinking of the state, and the state was with him on it.

  • Scope

    Cain- 37%
    Perry-15%
    Romney-14%
    Santorum-11%
    Paul-10%
    Gingrich-8%
    Huntsman-2%
    Bachmann-1%

    Woohoo. I am very happy for Herman Cain. He was my guy before Perry got in. I’m sure this will do wonders for the Herminator with name recog. and fundraising. Not sure if he can take it to the top, but good for him. Huh, Perry still beat Romney. Bachmann must be hiding somewhere about now.

    I truly believe that the voters in Fla at least are saying STOP with the negative campaigning, and trashing each other, hence Bachmann in last. Perry can now start ignoring everyone who was screaming that he needed to take the gloves off.

    Very sorry for the threadjack.

    • pttx333

      Cain is a really good guy, and I’m happy for him. Have listened to him on radio for years and always found him to be a good analyst. I do hope that if he doesn’t win, that he at least will have a VIP position somewhere since he is a valuable guy. The appears that the folks in FL get it!

      I guess the negatives are beginning to flow for Bachmann. She has really shot herself in the foot and it appears to be a mortal wound. It would appear that perhaps she and Huntsman should throw in the towel, but they probably won’t.

      • tyman

        I, too, am happy for Herman. I still don’t think he can be the nominee for various reasons.

        I proudly voted for Herman for Senate in GA several years ago, but he got beaten handily by Johnny Isakson.

        My first reaction is that they’re sending a message to Rick Perry, who was probably headed for a huge win there. I don’t think the SS Ponzi scheme played into this, at least among the people who voted in it.

        Maybe they looked at Herman and really see something. We’ll see what this does to his fundraising, etc.

        I don’t know how hard Bachmann campaigned in FL. Romney also didn’t campaign that hard there.

        • Scope

          You can’t not like Herman Cain. There is nothing there to not like about the person. I want Herman in the next administration very badly. You can’t let all that talent and knowledge go to waste. I don’t know that he will have the ability to get to the top spot though.

          I don’t know that the message was just for Perry. I really believe that the message was to tell the candidates to get off the negative campaigning. Fla. had to endure Alan Greyson with his circus and disgusting stunts, and they rejected him. Now they are dealing with Debbie Blabbermouth Shultz. This early in the season it has already gotten to be so horribly negative with one going after the other within the same party.

          From what I am seeing, Romney so far has only shown strong polling support in NH. He can’t get there from here with one early win, and then a bunch of no wins. From what I’m reading, Bachmann is kinda outta money, and probably didn’t have the monet to really compete, as she put her money on the line in Iowa.

          I believe that Herman will surge into 3rd place strongly, and will have money to carry his message to more audiences.

  • reaganbuckley

    nt

    • tyman

      For Romney, and others’ comments about the in state tuition being a magnet (the illegals aren’t coming here to get educated, many are running to this country simply to save their lives), it’s funny that they don’t complain about all of the Federal benefits. Did Santorum try to overturn any of those benefits while he was a senator?

      I also wonder if Romney thought that Romneycare would be a magnet for people in other state to move to MA, or if it would be a deterrent.

      Sometimes when the Federal government gives a state lemons, they simply have to make lemonade.

      • reaganbuckley

        It’s the freeloaders and criminals I want out. If you’re savvy enough to overcome having your parents bring you here illegally, poor economic circumstances learn English, and get good enough grades to get into UT, in my book, you can stay. Perry and Texas obviously, was trying to make the best of a bad situation.

        • tyman

          Maybe we can work out a deal with Mexico to send them some of our ne’er do wells.

        • gekster

          It’s to bad others can’t see the good side of this.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Thank you, Brad.

  • paulnashtn

    Illegal kids should not be here much less get in-state tuition to our schools ? BUT ? it IS as Gov. Perry says, what would you do with them since the federal government refuses to send them home. Although I agree that it is wrong, it is also absolutely necessary.
    MY biggest problem is that Perry seems incapable of explaining this rationally

  • paladin1

    passed overwhelmingly by the Texas Legislature and signed by Governor Perry, is a 10th Amendment issue both through the action of the state and the inaction of the Federal government. Several people on this site have commented that he could have vetoed the bill: in which case he would be ex-Governor Perry and would not have been able to continue the jobs progress in Texas, tort reform, budget reduction, Second Amendment support, or any of the other things conservatives support and that he has given us during his tenure. Alienating a huge block of voters in a hopeless, jousting at windmills gesture, by vetoing the bill, even if he disagreed with it would be even more stupid than the comments bashing Perry I have read. He has been rock-solid on stopping illegal immigration in our state and does not support the wall because he knows, as do I, the fierce terrain the fence would have to go through and the huge cost it would incur, both to build and to maintain. The effective use of border patrolmen and technological methods, coupled with rapid response capability, is the only way to effectively suppress illegal crossing in many portions of the Texas border. Texans overwhelmingly supported the law, the legislature overwhelmingly passed it, and Governor Perry signed it BECAUSE HE WAS COGNIZANT OF THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE AND AGREED WITH IT. Since the Federal government refuses to enforce the law and the State of Texas cannot, we have no other recourse but to make the best of it and reduce our long-term welfare outlays which we are required by the Federal Government, to pay out to the illegals. Education is the best way and, with all the requirements put on those qualifying, we did the best we could as a state to ensure the least expenditure possible. You people who say you have dumped Perry for Romney need to explain to me the difference between Romney-care and the Tuition Bill. There is none and you know it, so you have either chosen to obfuscate the Romney “blue state” record, or are just uneducated regarding it.

    What this tuition issue should tell you about Governor Perry is this: as the Chief Executive of the State of Texas, he did what was best for the people of Texas. You should be assured that if he becomes President of the United States, as I fervently hope, he will do what is best for the people of the United States and uphold to the hilt, our national immigration laws.

    I am a native Texan, have voted for Rick Perry in every statewide election he has run in, and will support him in this one as well because he is a tested, successful Conservative which is what this country needs. I am glad to see the bulk of Redstate commentators understand and support the governor. I was beginning to worry after the first postings on this thread.

    • Vegas_Rick

      Well said.

    • gekster

      There will still be posters who won’t understand it, but it is a good comment anyway.

      (suggestion: go a little further in detail with this explanation and make it a diary.
      Provide some facts and numbers maybe). ;)

    • Scope

      We have Perry’s back covered, and his flanks. Sometimes it takes wearing a flak jacket and some steel toed boots, but we have him covered.

    • pttx333

      have voted for Perry and am still standing tall in his corner. I will remain in his corner until the last dog dies. Never have I had a doubt as to how he would lead this nation on the road to recovery, and I still have no doubt. He has done well as our Governor, along with his lovely and gracious wife Anita. Hopefully, those who blow with the wind will come around at a later time. If not, they will be on the losing side of history.

      Never fear, there are some really good, solid Perry folks here. There are also some who support other good conservatives, along with some who are undecided or who prefer one of the RINOs. You will see for yourself as you read more on this site. All I know is that we must beat back the current administration. or we will lose our country for good.

    • trutexan

      I finally got near a computer after a long weekend and posted pretty much what you said. Then I read up and well…so we agree.

      I’m totally in Perry’s camp. I forgive the TTC debacle and applaud his making the best fiscal decisions for Texas tax payers.

  • tommyfrisco

    …doing it at the state level makes it right?…having a concensus amongst the lawmakers makes it right?…whatever it takes to get re-elected makes it right?,,,getting the Hispanic vote makes it right? I also question your statement that the majority of Texans supported this bill. I don’t know of anyone in Texas that were or are in support of allowing in-state tuition to children of illegal aliens. Maybe the people I talk to aren’t running for office.

    Our government is not enforcing its own laws against illegal immigration. Instead, our government is doing everything it can to encourage more people to come into our country illegally. The worse the problem gets, the more our politicians are going to pander for their votes.

  • DefendUSA

    This is a very reasonable account on Perry’s position. I still don’t care what the numbers say.

    My kid is attending one of the top five engineering schools in the country, rest assured it’s not in our home state. Therefore, I pay out of state rates.

    I am not okay with this simply because someone plays on the emotions that illegal kids are not here by their own hand. I don’t care. They are here under a false pretense and according to most rules, they are not legal residents and should therefore pay out of state rates. Period.

    I don’t like the double standard or the “leg up” mentality. We constantly hear about how the government wants to legislate equality without ever considering that smarts and potential are never the same for two people. These kids already have equal opportunity. And, if my kid cannot get a tuition break as a lifelong US born citizen, then neither should illegal immigrants.

    Yes, let them go to school, but no breaks until they become LEGAL, period. Let those illegal students put the blame on their parents and work to correct it. I am done with the sympathy card. Either that or make all tuition rates equal, unless you are a non- US resident. Then you will see who really wants to make a difference in kids lives over the tenure and BS that comes from those living the university life. A nice challenge, don’t you think? Affordable education for those who care to take it there.

    I can see the government witch shrinking fast…heh.

  • benson1

    and be a liberal to even think about accepting this. For all intents and purposes the word illegal now means nothing. Hey! I’m all for the states doing their own thing, that doesn’t mean I need to agree with it. Perry needs to get over himself think this through as if he really wants to be president (which means enforcing the laws of the United States) and stop being Governor of Texas for a minute. No one wants to be criticized for their decisions and it can be hard to take but now is not the time to double down on what was clearly a mistake no matter how many people thought it was right or voted for it. It really doesn’t matter how many people thought it was right and it doesn’t matter how many in the legislature voted for it. It is just plain wrong and goes against the law and we already know what it’s like to have someone govern with no regard for Americans or the law, we don’t need another one just because their a Republican. Perry needs to start looking at his decisions through the eyes of a presidential candidate who if elected will be defending the United States and American citizens not illegals.

    • tyman

      This law was passed 10 years ago. I think Perry wanted to focus on the economy for the whole country, but the other candidates and the news media wouldn’t let him.

      If the children are brought here through no fault of their own, I think it is setting them up to fail, considering that the Fed. gov’t. MAKES the state pay for illegals. What good are tax dollars used to educate illegals (as required by SCOTUS), if a child cannot pursue higher education?

      To me, this is taking dollars that could possibly go toward wellfare, etc. and using it to foster hard work (if the dollars are going to be spent anyway). That’s just a reallocation of dollars, that will hopefully pay off. Does anyone really get off wellfare?

      Besides this, do we punish children of American criminals? For a child that’s lived in Texas at least 3 years, that’s what you would be doing, in saying that they should pay out of state tuition (even though their parents have paid state taxes in Texas through sales tax).

      Who knows, if a child of illegals is able to go to school, and show what you can do in this country if you’re willing to work hard, you never know how that will affect their friends that are illegals or even their American friends. The idea is to broaden the tax base, not drain the state dry with more Federally mandated payments at the state’s expense.

  • trutexan

    After reading your piece, I was able to have a very good discussion with folks this weekend using actual numbers and impact on the state of Texas. It allowed me to state in logical means the actual issues and many were unaware of what the law actually says. This is one of the reasons I love RS. But because of your post, I was able to separate the two issues: one is a federal problem and the other is dealing with a local problem. One lady kept harping on how it’s wrong to help illegals. I kept repeating, “You’re talking about a federal problem. What do you do if you’re Rick Perry?” She finally got it.

    Perry’s hands are tied when trying to deal with the federal problem of illegal immigration. Even if he loaded them all up on a bus to send back over the border, ICE would participate in its “Catch and Release” program and then Texas is right back where it started with the added cost of those officers who did the rounding up and loading and all the processing involved. So Perry chose to deal with this as a local problem. I completely agree with you on your post. Texas has to pay for these students one way or the other and I completely agree to help make them educated citizens who will then become tax payers. Otherwise, they end up with LoneStar cards, in public housing, getting free healthcare (because the feds won’t let us turn them away) and then have legal children and we can’t send them back then because you’re breaking up the family.

    Perry has been handed a crap sandwich from the federal government because of its total failure to deal with illegal immigration. Putting these kids whose parents did the illegal thing on a path to citizenship and an education is doing the best by the Texas tax payers and the future Texans those kids are going to create.

  • izoneguy

    I am doing more & more work for Hispanic clients.
    I am a video producer and almost 40% of my work is
    now translated and voiced over in Spanish.

    I can read enough Spanish to get the job done.

    I have done this kind of work for 30 years in the DFW area.
    Until about 1990 I never did anything in Spanish.
    What should I do? Turn down the work and hope the Hispanic
    folks go back to old Mexico???

    The Hispanics will only grow as a demographic. If Republicans think
    they can have a hard line to immigration and Hispanics then get
    ready to be ruled by the democrats forever. All the Hispanics I know
    are hard working, smart and very respective. Now Obama supporters,
    not so much.

  • Pingback: Dems shouldn’t mess with Texas | The Great Debate

  • JSobieski

    I should also point out that Huckabee (someone I don’t support for President) enacted something very similar while he was governor, and he was shredded on that point here at RS.

    It is contrary to the rule of law that a law abiding citizen in Michigan pay more in tuition to attend U of T, than someone who is here illegally.

    This isn’t a make-or-break issue for me, but I don’t think calling it “right” makes a lot of sense.

  • Darin_H

    spends their 3 previous years as a resident of Texas and graduates from a TX HS, will pay in-state tuition.

    An illegal immigrant who graduates from a MI HS will still have to pay out-of-state tuition in Texas.

    Hope this helps.

  • Money

    I presume the primary reason that law-abiding Texas citizens pay lower tuition than law-abiding Michigan citizens to attend UT is that law-abiding Texas citizens have contributed to UT through property and sales taxes, while the law-abiding Michigan citizen has not.

    Another good (and related) reason to have higher tuition for out-of-staters is to limit the numbers of people migrating from other states to our universities, which would limit the number of positions available for in-state students. The last thing Texans want is a whole bunch of Oklahomans invading our otherwise pristine universities.

    Providing in-state tuition for illegal aliens who graduated from Texas high schools and are pursuing US citizenship furthers each of these purposes. These students and their families have contributed property and sales tax revenue to the state, either directly or indirectly, and by graduating from a Texas high school and maintaining residency for at least 3 years they are as Texan as many out-of-staters who squat here for 12 months to gain the requisite residency to get in-state tuition.

  • darogers

    Perry has repeatedly misstated what the Texas law does. At this point, it’s not possible to give him the benefit of the doubt anymore.

    The Texas law violates federal laws–two of them, both passed during Newt’s speakership in the summer of 1996, and one of the sponsored by a Texas Congressman, the new Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith.

    No one is required to “check” on anyone’s “progress” towards citizenship, despite Perry’s frequent protestations to the contrary. And, in fact, absent amnesty, illegal aliens don’t make “progress” or “move towards” citizenship.

    The original statute only asks that the illegal alien “apply” to attain lawful status. (HB 1403, 2001 regular session, line 2-26 through 3-6, http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=77R&Bill=HB1403) )

    There is no enforcement mechanism.

    The second, 2005 statute, requires only that the alien file an affidavit stating his intent to file for legal status (SB 1528, 2005 regular session, section 54.052 (j)(4) “if the person is not a citizen or permanent
    resident of the United States, an affidavit stating that the person
    will apply to become a permanent resident of the United States as
    soon as the person becomes eligible to apply”.

    Of course, without amnesty, the illegal alien is almost NEVER “eligible to apply for permanent resident status.

    Needless to say, there is no enforcement mechanism.

    There is nothing but an endless giveaway of taxpayer money–as much as $40,000 in Grant$ from the Texas Grant program alone at top Texas universities, and a minimum of $20,000 in Texas Grant$ at bottom-tier institutions. And, of course, that doesn’t count other taxpayer-funded grant and taxpayer-subsidized loan programs. And, of course, there is the subsidy that comes just with classifying illegal aliens as “residents” for tuition purposes.

    All told, the cost to Texas taxpayers could easily exceed $200,000 per illegal alien.

    Multiply that by 16,476, and all of a sudden you’re talking about real money.

    You want a guy who thinks that giving over $3 billion to illegal aliens who should be deported is a good idea to be president?

    Remember, if your answer is “no”, “you’ve got no heart.”

    Condescending and reckless is not a combination in a President.

  • ithos

    The people who have put the children in this situation are the parents who intentionally broke our laws. They and they alone bear responsibility for the consequences. Yet you expect the taxpayer to reward the illegal activity with generous benefits which will in turn beget more of the same. This is borderline immoral. Why don’t we offer more benefits to children of bank robbers? Isn’t that humane? There is one primary solution. Eliminate all incentives for foreign citizens to break our law.

    To base policy decisions on anecdotal sob stories without considering the potential consequences is fraught with danger. That is what liberals do and you see the mess we are in because of it.

  • JSobieski

    A legal resident of the US should not be paying more for tuition at U of T than an illegal resident.

    I don’t remember all of the people at RS defending Mr. Huckabee on this point.

  • wennejunk

    n/t

  • Doc Holliday

    and I understand that. We want Obama gone, and people are willing to bend their values into the shape of a pretzel to do it. But they are backing the wrong horse, what could be worse than abandoning your principles to support a loser?

    I would take Gingrich or Cain over this guy any day of the week.

  • Darin_H

    I thought states mattered, 10th amendment and all that. Guess it’s rubbish. States can’t kick illegal immigrants out, and they are forced to accept them to public k-12 schools. This is the best solution that Texas came up with, is it perfect? No. But it addressed a problem with broad support among Texans.

  • Doc Holliday

    you think the universities don’t want students from out of state? Did you attend a Texas university? I did. Ever here of accepting or denying? People are so full of excrement here, they are like someone in quicksand flailing around for anything they can grab.

    for the last time, THERE IS NO ILLEGAL “PATH TO CITIZENSHIP”, IT DOES NOT EXIST, IT IS ILLEGAL AND CAN NOT BE DONE. PERRY IS LYING ABOUT THIS.

  • JSobieski

    Is illegal status such a trival civil infraction (analogous to an overdue library book), that the logic of in-state tuition takes precedence?

    If the answer is yes, then de factor amnesty is a logical conclusion. Either illegal status is something you fix by just filling out a form and updating your place of residence or it is a legal status that actually means something.

    If it doesn’t mean anything, why even bother with it.

    If a state can ignore illegal status in charging tuition, why shouldn’t businesses ignore illegal status in making hiring decisions? Why shouldn’t cities declare themselves to be “sanctuary cities”?

  • runner12

    No self-respecting Oklahoman would lower their standards enough to go down to Texas and their “pristine” universities, at least the public ones. I seriously cannot believe you threw your neighbors to the North under the bus like that.

  • JSobieski

    Your 10th Amendment appeal is crap. Besides, immigration is something that the federal governemnt has primacy on.

    This is exactly the kind of flim flam spin that leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many Perry supporters.

  • Doc Holliday

    and Perry is applying for the American Presidency.

  • Darin_H

    “It is contrary to the rule of law”?

  • JSobieski

    contrary to the law

  • Darin_H

    This problem affects kids who are in the country illegally not of their own choosing.

  • JSobieski

    “illegal”

    adjective
    1.
    forbidden by law or statute.

    2.
    contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.

  • Darin_H

    I thought you just said that is was. I’m really having a hard time following your logic here.

  • JSobieski

    That is a more viable argument, but it seems to me that embracing that position means that amnesty for kids is the next step.

  • chipbennett

    …were generally of the legal age of majority?

  • rightwingmom52

    they’re no longer minors, or at least not for long. So in actuality, this law benefits adults.

  • gherkin

    The funny thing is, I’m married to a -legal- immigrant, and her initial reaction after listening to the debate was to disagree vehemently with Perry’s position. She came around once I explained that (a) we were talking about kids who had no real choice in the matter (b) what pays for in-state “subsidies” (which I frankly think is a backwards way of explaining it) and (c) the difference between State and Federal matters and actions in this arena.

    I do understand the “magnet” objection, but ultimately for me the fundamental point is that we’re talking about people who came here as minors not by their own decision.

  • Darin_H

    Which law is it contrary to?

  • Doc Holliday

    Republicans for anchor babies!!!!!!!!!!! Or, we could get our heads back and look for a good candidate.

  • porkandcheese

    We want law-abiding, productive and patriotic immigrants. Who better than honor students going through the naturalization process. Btw Susana Martinez, our new rock star Republican, is the daughter of an illegal.

  • JSobieski

    In case the meaning of that phrase is confusing to you, it means someone who is here “illegally.” The word “illegal” is an adjective that modifies the word “immigrant”. The word immigrant refers to someone who moves from one nation to another.

    You are NOT helping your cause if you want to help Perry.

  • JSobieski

    then I guess there is was no reason for Perry to pass the law in the first place, now was there.

    Non-compliance with the immigration process (set forth in federal law and regulations) makes someone either “legal” or “illegal”

    My mistake was in thinking you were actually going to argue in a sincere way.

  • Darin_H

    ICE dumps them right back out and Texas can’t deport them on their own.

    In an ideal world, would this law even be necessary? No. Which is Rick Perry’s point, that the Feds have ignored their responsibility and dumped this problem back onto the states. The situation left is to solve the problem the best they could.

  • Darin_H

    between the law and the status of a person.

  • Darin_H

    n/t

  • JSobieski

    You are denying that legal residents have a status that they obtain by going through one of a variety of processes?

    So the people who torture themselves are just wasting their time spending hours and hours in government offices and waiting months and months for responses?

    This is exactly why Perry supporters are going to hurt their candidate. Instead of saying, hey immigration law isn’t everything you assert that there is no immigration law in the first place.

    So you must favor more than de factor amnesty, sounds like you support automatic amnesty. I mean, what law are they breaking?

  • JSobieski

    The first paragraph of the diary reads as follows:

    “A Texas law supported by Republican presidential candidate and Texas Governor Rick Perry to provide in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants when they attend college has gotten a lot of attention recently. It was the primary focus of several heated exchanges at last night?s debate and was widely criticized on Twitter as well, but Perry?s opponents and the media are giving an inaccurate picture of the law and its effects.”

    If you weren’t such an opportunistic spinner, you would argue with the author of the diary that there is no such thing as “illegal immigrants”. I look forward to your correction of the author.

  • Darin_H

    and different in status?

    (not to get into a debate about the right/wrong on anchor babies)

  • JSobieski

    I care more about the dishonesty in handling the issue than I do the issue itself.

    The logic of the Texas bill is indistinguishable from amnesty for kids.

  • JSobieski

    As citizens of the US, they are legal here in the US.

    Your arguments are some of the most dishonest that I have seen here at RS.

  • Doc Holliday

    I am all about the Constitution. my bad there

  • Darin_H

    A Texas law

    A – an article

    Texas – The state of Texas

    Law – The principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

  • JSobieski

    I realize that you have problems understanding what the term “illegal immigrant” means. Why don’t you take those concerns up with the author of the diary?

    The level of obfuscation and misdirection here is very disappointing.

  • JSobieski

    Just be honest about it.

    Arguing against the terminology of “illegal alien” is a pretty strong indication that not only do you support amnesty, but that it pains you to even acknowledge that amnesty is even required.

  • chipbennett

    …are subordinate to federal laws – including immigration laws.

    So if a person is an illegal immigrant per federal law, then that person is an illegal immigrant in the (great) State of Texas, also.

    Can we now get back to the topic at hand? Disagreeing with a law passed by the State of Texas is not inherently a challenge to the constitutional right of the State of Texas to pass said law. Agreement with the right of the State of Texas to pass said law is not inherent agreement with the propriety of said law.

  • Darin_H

    ^

  • Shaggy_DA

    JS you are making the wrong argument here and it is hurting your credibility. Being in the country without permission — without more — is only a misdemeanor. To take your argument to its logical conclusion, states should also preclude any person convicted (or even charged since we still have innocent until proven guilty on the books) of any misdemeanor from obtaining in-state tuition rates. That’s just stupid, Please move on from the whole “they’re illegal” argument and stick with other things such as “the policy encourages other individuals to enter the country without permission” or similar.

  • Doc Holliday

    I am going to bow out on the issue, at least at this juncture. There is no point is making the same arguments over and over, I already have a headache and I have been gone for a month lol.

    But not a single person was intellectually honest enough to dispute our points, and that is quite sad. Not one person supporting Perry was willing to explain how an illegal alien attending college was already on “a path to citizenship”. Not a single person was willing to explain why American citizens have died in battle when their goal was joining the Army to get Texas in state tuition, yet an illegal can get it comped. BTW, why does everyone assume these illegals were “dragged here by their parents”? Weird, but I am letting it go.

  • Darin_H

    n\t

  • JSobieski

    US citizens living in Texas could already qualify for in-state tuition.

    What is wrong with you?

  • Darin_H

    I don’t support amnesty for 6 month olds who parents take them across the border, just throwing it out there :)

  • Darin_H

    Anchor baby = US citizen

    If said anchor baby is a resident of Texas, they will pay in-state tuition rates. If not, out-of state rates.

    I don’t see an actual point you’re trying to make.

  • Darin_H

    And I’d ‘ppreciate it if you didn’t ascribe positions to me that I don’t hold.

  • chipbennett

    What such children did as minors has no direct bearing on what they choose to do as legal adults. Just because their parents brought them here illegally does not confer either the right of citizenship or of amnesty. They were here illegally as minors, and remain here illegally as adults.

  • JSobieski

    Let me put this in words that you might be able to understand:

    Before Perry signed that bill, an anchor baby was a US citizen. That baby was a resident of Texas even if the baby’s parents were illegal. Thus, the anchor baby could pay for in-state tuition WITHOUT PERRY SIGNING ANY BILL INTO LAW.

    Thus the use of the anchor babies to justify the law is dishonest misdirection on your part.

    Anchor babies are NOT illegal immigrants, and thus they are not impacted by the law in any way.

    Do you even think before you write?

  • Aaron Gardner

    Whatever.

  • JSobieski

    Since you don’t answer my questions, I fail to see why I should answer any more of yours.

    Good thing you aren’t working for Perry’s campaign.

  • Darin_H

    They they didn’t choose to move when they were minors.

  • Darin_H

    You’re just unhinged at this point.

  • JSobieski

    By definition, anchor babies were born here. I should also point out that the word “baby” refers to a human being.

  • chipbennett

    …to which I was replying:

    I think the difference is in minors vs adults

    This problem affects kids who are in the country illegally not of their own choosing.

    College students are not minors.

    College students are legal adults, and are here of their own volition.

    Once they are adults, they are absolutely free to choose to respect US immigration law, by returning to their country of origin, and attempting to re-enter the US legally. Otherwise, by choosing to stay here, they are choosing to flaunt US immigration law, and thus are fully responsible for their illegal immigration status.

  • JSobieski

    Thanks for making me regret the exchange.

  • powertothepeople

    Cain or Gingrich over Perry, but do not assume to be all knowing enough to make a comment such as “……….people are willing to bend their values into the shape of a pretzel to do it” as you would not only be insulting, you would be wrong.

    That comment can be much easier applied to your Gingrich choice than with Perry and even then it would still be wrong as I do not know what your values are. Just because some do not agree with your or Jsob’s assessment of Perry or the tuition issue does not make your point more correct or that they are lowering their standards, or as you so insultingly put it, abandoning their principles.

  • chipbennett

    Gingrich’s support of Dede Scozzafava that cost the GOP a House seat, and his partnering with Pelosi in support of AGW legislation disqualify him from consideration, as far as I’m concerned.

    Gingrich says the right things, and is as sharp an analyst as we have in the field, but his actions condemn him.

  • Doc Holliday

    you can’t out debate me and you can’t get to me as long as I ignore you.

    I have been very clear, people are lying to themselves if they can not dispute what I have stated all along. I never called you a liar, but you are a pain in the arse; and you are doing it on purpose, seeking me out.

    I have said over and over to those trying to whitewash Perry’s postion:

    1) show where an illegal alien planning to go to college in Texas is “on a path to citizenship”. It is very simple, either there is a path to citizenship for illegals or there is not. Please show the path, show the legal code that explains this path.

    2) explain how giving illegal aliens in state tuition will “get them off the dole”. The issue here is that illegal aliens are banned from any dole, they can not legally be on medicaid, food stamps, or unemployment insurance. So how can going to college “get them of the dole” as Perry says, if they can’t legally be on the dole.

    I have made these points over and over today and not ONE Person has even had the guts or intellectual honesty to even try to respond to them, not a single person.

    Aaron, you are on ignore until you decide to grow up. I bent over backwards to get on with you today, but I guess that is not possible at this juncture. My advice is to forget the ad hominems and if you want to debate me, debate the merits of the argument. If that is not possible, then forget I exist. I am not leaving for you, hell I have been here longer than you and have more friends here than you do. Just debate the issues or leave me the freak alone pal.

  • smagar

    It’s THEIR state. A state that’s booming, BTW. Many of these illegal immigrants were raised in Texas. They’re much more American (and Texan) than Mexican.

    Texans apparently support this idea. It’s their business.

  • Doc Holliday

    I know people who joined the military to get Texas in state tuition, well I will not get into it further, because I doubt you have my best interests in mind. I guess I care about what is fair and I care about what is right.

    Perry flat out LIED when he said the illegals were “on a path to citizenship” because none exists

    Perry flat out LIED when he said giving illegals in state tuition would get them “off the dole” because illegals can not legally be on the dole.

    I guess I care because these are lies and people I respect are just accepting them and ignoring them because they think it is politically expedient to do so.

    I am way more pissed about how so many “conservatives” are rolling over than I am about the actual law. I care about intellectual honesty. I take popular positions and unpopular positions, but at least I can explain why I take them. People are accepting this simply because they don’t want to rock the boat, even when they know Perry’s reasons are inherently false. That is what bothers me.

  • victoria_29

    Your arguments are not relevant IMO. Bottom line is who each state choose to deal with the illegal immigrants that the Federal Govt thrusts on us by not closing borders & not deporting is OUR business.

    Rick Perry signed a bill in 2001 (which everyone sure forgets to mention y’all act like he did it yesterday & things were a lot different 10 years ago) that was supported by a LARGE bi-partisan majority of the state. In other words he did the will of the people of his state, that is his JOB>

  • acat

    for the actions of Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc. etc.

    As the Obama administration have made crystal {copulating} clear in Arizona, they want the border open. This is not a significant change from any of the prior administrations.

    None in the Federal exective branch have gone nearly as hammer-and-tongs at illegal immigration as Caesar Chavez did… Let that sink in.

    So.

    You’re proposing to punish Perry because Obama sued to keep Arizona from making ICE do their jobs, because Bush poured a bunch of money into a “smart” fence that accomplished jack squat, because Clinton would rather dally an intern than tally the cost of illegals, because Bush wasn’t sure which of the thousand points of light were here legally, need I continue?

    I agree, it’s a bad scene. A sticky and twisted and disgraceful situation.

    I question, however, whether you’re placing the blame correctly.

    Mew

  • Doc Holliday

    one person to tell Vegas to bugger off. One person to say, “hey I know this guy, you can’t call him a racist”. that would be nice. Runner, Aesthete, Jsob, Geckster, GC, mbeck, anyone?

  • gekster

    For as long as I have known you, I can tell you are no racists.
    I do stand on the opposite side of this particular debate,
    But just because I disagree does not make you a racist.
    Just on the other side of the debate.
    Doc, you are no racist.

    ( I myself have decided to stay out of this particular fray at this time).

  • acat

    Having never met Doc in meatspace, I can’t confirm that he doesn’t eat a steady diet of kittens or have some other social shortcomings, but .. racist?

    Don’t see it.

    Mew

    p.s. Doc .. learn to throw a verbal punch, will ya?

  • Jack_Savage

    Just kidding. I really didn’t care.

    The internet made me mean. Actually, it permits me to be meaner, but I digress. I begged Erick to ban me, and that was not long ago. He didn’t, and I am not sure whether I wish he had or not. Moe’s suggestion of canceling my own damn subscription was good advice, and maybe I will take it. Anyway, take another break before the interwebs does the same to you.

    No one here truly thinks you are a racist, but I doubt they think you are comporting yourself well. And before you call me a jagoff again, may I say I have been there and done that. The not comporting well thing.

    More to the point of the discussion – Perry has over a million illegals in his state. Some of them want to go to college, which is better than wanting to go to jail.

    What do you do? Not in theory, but what do you go up to them, look them in the eye, and say to them? That is what this discussion is about, but it has escalated to a bad point, as it usually does.

  • Doc Holliday

    and I appreciate the support. I was really losing faith fast.

  • Doc Holliday

    would really know it. I don’t have a single ‘ist, other than libertarianist.

    I am punched out acat, verbally and otherwise. I really think there is a sell by date when it comes to being a reader here. The people I joined with are either mods and front pagers or they moved on, I never know when to do that lol.

    but thanks for the back up.

  • Vegas_Rick

    and I apologize to anyone, other than Mr. Holliday, who I may have offended by the comment. However, I did not start the name calling and ad hominem attacks. Doc refused to answer my arguments in a civil manner, he simply chose to stomp and stammer at whoever disagreed with him, comparing Redstate to LaRaza,questioning my honor, name calling, etc.

    I try to debate in a civil manner and treat everyone with respect, when I am treated that way.

    BTW, acat, your arguments are some of the most logical and respectful on the site. I always enjoy reading your comments, and usually learn from the information you present.

  • Darin_H

    in Texas for 3 years.

    Do I need to say it again?

  • Darin_H

    facepalm

    Really?

    REALLY??

  • powertothepeople

    Vegas. This is coming from someone who can get rude with the best. Doc whined off the scene a few months back, comes back and insults all of us who do not agree with him, and while I am sure he is not a racist, this is yet another example of his normal self pity, look at me, you better apologize, I am so innocent everyone is just mean to me, I am going to leave because everyone is not stroking my ego, nonsense he pulls each and every time.

    I am sure he is no racist just as I am sure you have honor and we have not abandoned our principles all while twisting our principles into pretzels. Just know he can not take what he dishes out, so do not worry about it. He will cry a bit, threaten to leave, then will move on to whining about Aaron Gardner, Moe, and Neil.

  • Doc Holliday

    I still don’t think I questioned your honor, but if you feel I did, I apologize. We disagree on this issue but it is stupid to get crazy over it. Tomorrow is another day, I know I will forget it.

  • Doc Holliday

    I am too tired and worn out at this point lol. I really am. I don’t know what Perry should do, I wonder how many illegals are really going to college. It sounds funny, but I was really most angry that people seemed to be changing their opinions to fit the candidate, that is my opinion, i could be wrong.

    I said before that I think the illegal immigration issue has long since been decided. Acat and others can back me up, I have said that, heck, I said it today at some point. I was just perturbed by the political gymnastics that I perceived. But you are right sir, i am way to high strung right now, I feel warn to the bone.

    btw, “jagoff” is a Pennsylvania term, it basically alludes to a thorn bushes that catch on your coat when walking through the woods. It is just something bugging you.

    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1709231/the_true_meaning_of_jagoff.html

  • Jack_Savage

    I always thought it was…well…you know. Well I’ll be.

    The difficult thing to do as a leader is to understand the reality of your situation, and deal with it the best way you know how. That’s why the brain-dead fool in the White House had nary a blemish on his record – he voted “present” his entire life.

    I am willing to give Perry – and Romney, for that matter, some measure of the benefit of the doubt. They were both in situations not many people find themselves in, and they are both on my team.

    What area of PA?

  • Doc Holliday

    so there.

  • Darin_H

    And you know what chip?

    I’m sorry. My attitude has now gotten out of hand.

    And with that I’m out for the night (and probably the weekend as tomorrow my wife and I are celebrating our anniversary).

  • Doc Holliday

    I have lived all over, but am Texan of all things :) I will talk to you in more detail about the immigration issue, but I need to call it a night. I said before I don’t think this is a deal breaker for Perry, but I do worry about his candidacy overall, certainly the debating. I know we are getting to brass tax, I know our options are small. I actually hope Gingrich or Cain can make a charge, but that is not very likely.

  • Vegas_Rick

    I think we should be able to debate these issues rationally, and I did feel attacked. But, I also know that racist is a particularly vile term and you have my sincere apology. Let’s both bury the hatchet and try to do better next time, eh? :)

  • Doc Holliday

  • GregInFla

    They are “illegal” in federal law’s eyes, but that does not allow Texas to do anything about it.

  • GregInFla

    was a worthy investment. If you object to Texas deciding to do this, then write your Texas legislators. If you don’t have any, then please understand it is not your money they are spending.

  • cjf99b

    You are getting way too worked up. I went to a Texas University and met someone who was greatly impacted by this law. He was the first in the family
    to graduate college and unlike his brother who didn’t have the grades to qualify, it kept him out of a gang. He is now a legal citizen and works in finance. His brother is now in prison. Look, this was a fairly popular bill in Texas back
    in 2001 and remains popular now. You don’t have to like it, but Texans wanted it. The way I see it, if these kids have lived here for 3 years and have the grades to get in to UT, more power to them. If you want to get mad at something, try focusing your anger on the Feds on not sending more reinforcements to the border.

  • cjf99b

    Except Hook Em!

  • Doc Holliday

    and I explained my personal experience with this a few times tonight. I believe Perry and Texas are wrong in this, but I am moving on from it. I am not going to hold it against him to the point of disowning the man, I am for anyone who can stop Obama. But he crept into Lindsay Graham territory last night, he should not question the motives of those who disagree with him.

  • kaheo

    I’d like to hear what category this illegal/undocumented immigrant was able to find a path to citizenship. As far as I know, this can only happen under the political asylum category but its a lie to suggest that US Immigration law allows undocumented immigrants to attain legal status by virtue of obtaining a degree. They are numerous educated illegal immigrants and they don’t have legal status!

  • porkandcheese

    I like that he doesn’t stroke your egos and pander like Romney and the rest of the chumps. Romney is the new Tancredo? He supported McCain-Kennedy and has illegals working in his mansions. Gingrich has been covered. Ron Paul says the same thing every time, and he has accomplished nothing in the House. He is an older, crazier Bachmann. Santorum is a joke. He supported Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey, he is as big as bigot toward gays as Paul is toward blacks and Jews and his wife had an abortion, yet he is a moral crusader? He is a loser. Then they all get up their with their bussed in crowds and FOX bully pulpits, taking shots at the most elective conservative on the stage instead of Obama. They’re useless and embarrassing, and I think there should be a trap door, a shark tank and a hotline at the next debate. I’m sick of them all.