« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Perry, Illegals, and In-State Tuition

As many of you, I watched the GOP Debate from Orlando last night with something approaching exasperation. The kabuki theater that is the modern day political “debate” is a bit hard to take sometimes. So much of the so-called analysis is around style, delivery, who came off “looking Presidential” and the like.

But one exchange last night that really caught my eye, and left something memorable was the attack on Perry by… well… everyone on stage on the issue of the Texas law that provides in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants. Rick Perry did a particular poor job of defending his position on this, but at the same time, watching the glee and gusto with which Romney (ROMNEY! of all people), Santorum, and others went after Perry makes me wonder what the hell they’re thinking.

What Perry Should Have Said

There is no doubt in my mind that Rick Perry was over-prepped. At times he looked like a particular dumb student trying to remember the answers to a test for which he had crammed the night before. His answers to the in-state tuition issue were incoherent at times, and he did not advance his candidacy at all with his failure to explain the overall position vis-a-vis illegal immigration.

The first point he should have made, with force and clarity, is that no matter what you might think of the Texas law, it’s a Texas issue, dammit, and Texans can decide through its legislature how Texans want to handle public universities. If you don’t like our policies, go the hell to your own state university. Refer back to the 10th Amendment, which is one of his signature positions. He did say 181 members of Texas legislature with only 4 dissents, but that left it open to Santorum’s attack. He needed to repeat this point again: it’s a TEXAS issue. If TEXANS want to “subsidize” illegals for TEXAS universities, then that’s our business.

The second point he should have made is that the problem with illegal immigration is the ILLEGAL part, not the IMMIGRATION part. This is perhaps a too-subtle point, but it needs to be made somehow, by somebody, and who better than the governor of a large border state with hundreds of years of free movement between Mexico and Texas? He made the point about the children of illegals who came here through no choice of their own, but that was lost in all the “magnet” talk and “subsidy” talk. The point he needed to make is that what he and the Republicans and even the wider conservative movement want is to enforce our laws, not to vilify immigrants. (I’d like to address this one in greater depth below, so hold on to any critical response.)

The third point he should have made, particularly against Romney’s (ROMNEY??? REALLY???) whole “it’s a $100K subsidy” line of attack, is that if students living in Massachusetts want the in-state tuition, all they have to do is become a resident of Texas. (See here for details) He could have expanded that line into a positive, “We want people coming to Texas, to become Texans, to add to our economy in Texas, to join our Texas community.”

The Problem With Illegal Immigration

My larger point is that the GOP (and by extension, the conservative movement) appears to be moving towards a position that is both (a) politically improvident, and (b) morally out of character. I base this on the fact that Perry was booed last night by the attendees, and that wide swaths of the base think of him as being “weak on immigration”.

I really would like to believe that our party, and our conservative movement, agrees with me that the problem with illegal immigration is the “illegal” part, not the “immigration” part. Sen. Marco Rubio is a clear example of immigrants not only adding to the richness of this country, but in some ways, understanding even better than “natives” what is so special and so unique about the United States. We give a lot of lip service to the idea — on both the Left and the Right — that United States is a “nation of immigrants”.

Stories about hardworking immigrants coming to this country with nothing to end up being pillars of their local communities abound, not because they’re just useful tales to be told on the campaign trail by one politician or another, but because they are true. That America is the land of opportunity is proven day in and day out by millions of immigrants.

The problem then is not immigrants, but how they got here.

If they got here legally, following the rules, then we all should (and most of time, do) celebrate them, welcome them into the American society, and give them all sorts of opportunities for a better life for themselves and their children. And in return, immigrants enrich all of us, quite literally in many cases, by starting businesses, improving neighborhoods, buying homes here, and undertaking their unique American journey.

Yes, we can have debates about how we as a society have lost our way culturally thanks to the multiculturalism infecting our media, our academy, and our government. We can and should talk about things like English as the national language (and I say this as an immigrant who didn’t know any English landing on these shores). We can and should talk about how American history is taught, how we apparently do not value American values enough to ask newcomers to adopt those same values, and so forth. We can and should discuss how many immigrants we want, under what circumstances, and for what reasons.

But in that discussion, I believe the average American of whatever political stripe believes something like the following:

  1. We will not accept bad guys, and have the right to make life miserable for them.
  2. We will not tolerate freeloaders who come here just to have access to all sorts of social safety net goodies.
  3. But we do want the honest folks who are just seeking a better life to be able to come here, add to our society, and make something of themselves. In fact, we admire those folks quite a bit, and often look to them for inspiration on how hard we ourselves should be working to succeed.
  4. Folks who are getting all worked up about the honest immigrants are, in fact, heartless — as Perry said last night.

There is, I believe, a sort of hierarchy of dislike when it comes to illegal immigrants in the American subconsciousness. At the top of that list are the criminals, gangsters, and bad elements. But we’d hate those people even if they came to the country legally. Bad people are bad people, period, whatever their immigration status.

Second on the list are the freeloaders.

Third on the list may be the ‘cultural imperialists’ who come to America just to make money, but never, ever intend to become an American. I can personally attest that Asian communities are most susceptible to this sort of immigrant (whether legal or illegal) who come here to make money, to create a better life for their families, and so on, but have a visceral disdain for “American culture” or “American values”.

Somewhere near the very bottom of the list has got to be the children of immigrants who had absolutely no choice whether to come here or not. They were brought here by their parents. They did the best they could to adjust to a new situation — like my kids are adjusting to being in Texas instead of New Jersey — and grew up as they could.

Of all of the people to target, does it really make sense to target these kids? To tell them that despite the fact that you had nothing to do with the lawbreaking, despite the fact that if you’ve actually gotten to the point where you want to be applying to attend college where you grew up, where you went to school, despite all of that… we’re going to vilify them of all people?

Yeah, sorry, that is heartless.

The Uniqueness That May Be Texas

As a new immigrant to Texas from New Jersey (and yes, that’s how I feel the move is for someone who spent his formative years in the Northeast liberal elite enclaves), one major difference I noticed right away is how much more ‘integration’ there is in Texas between “Americans” and “Mexicans”. There are Mexican-Americans in Texas whose families have lived in Texas for generations, but are from the border areas where commerce, culture, trade, and influences overlap. There is, in fact, a reason why the cuisine known as “Tex-Mex” exists.

And one thing I’ve become fairly aware of is that there is a uniqueness to Texas. There is an indescribable Texan identity, a Texan culture, that overlays everything and everyone. You could be the descendant of original Mayflower pilgrims, but if you come into Texas from Massachusetts… you lack that Texan identity, that Texan “thing” which sets you apart from your neighbors.

As a result, where in places like New Jersey or Pennsylvania, there are real cultural differences between the mainstream “Anglo” community and the ethnic communities, in Texas, there is a sense of a Texan identity/culture that goes on top of the ethno-cultural differences.

I could very easily see how the people of Texas, through their legislature, could make the determination that the kids who grew up in Texas, went to Texas schools, love Texas high school football, root for the Dallas Cowboys, love the rodeo, go fishing and hunting, and so on and so forth are fellow TEXANS… even if their parents came here illegally. I could understand that. I could very easily understand how out of 181 legislators, only 4 opposed the law in question.

Of course, after Perry’s performance, and given the importance of the illegal immigration issue, I’m now sure that this particular Texas law would be demagogued to death by all of the other candidates. That is truly unfortunate.

Because in a real way, that law provides a way to thread the narrow path between the Scylla of Open Borders crowd and the Charybdis of anti-immigrant nativists. It is a way to showcase that as a party, as a movement, what we want is the enforcement of our laws first and foremost, control over our borders second, and all of it tempered with the understanding that immigrants are not to blame.

I hope Perry will get his story and his message straight. But more than that, I hope we all in the base come to understand the distinction and come to agree that we can be strongly for enforcement, that we can demand our borders be controlled, that we implement programs (like e-Verify) that combats illegal activities… while we can also be strongly pro-immigrant, and celebrate those who actually want to become an American.

If the kid who wants to go to UT Austin, who went to high school in Texas, who was brought here by his parents, is not one of those people who actually want to become an American if given the chance… then I don’t know who is.

To take away the opportunity for that kid to become a fully functioning American, out from under the shadows… well, that is heartless.

-TS

COMMENTS

  • Aaron Gardner

    Very well done my friend. Also, missed you at the Gathering this year.

    • chipbennett

      …for the tweet link to this post; I agree: absolute must-read.

    • http://www.redstate.com/thesophist TheSophist

      But next year… After I’ve done a bit more on the activism side… :)

  • chipbennett

    this is a straw man:

    Of all of the people to target, does it really make sense to target these kids? To tell them that despite the fact that you had nothing to do with the lawbreaking, despite the fact that if you?ve actually gotten to the point where you want to be applying to attend college where you grew up, where you went to school, despite all of that? we?re going to vilify them of all people?

    In short, “not giving preferential treatment” is not equivalent to “vilifying”. Not providing such children a benefit afforded to legal, State residents is not equivalent to “vilifying” them; rather, at worst, it merely means that such children are treated as non-residents.

    Also, the very notion that we Right-Wingers are in any way whatsoever opposed to legal immigration is nothing other than a liberal talking point propagated by complicit mainstream media. That assertion does not need to be argued against; rather, it needs to be ridiculed as the ad hominem that it is.

    • Aaron Gardner

      First, it would be discriminatory treatment to require these kids to pay non-resident rates after years of their family paying the same sales tax that other Texas residents pay.

      Second, there is a contingent within the right coalition that is anti immigrant, and actively conflates illegal and legal immigration issues. It is sad, but it is a fact. I’ll admit that they are a distinct minority, but they are an active and vocal minority non the less.

      • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

        Look who surgically removes “illegal” from pro-immigrant protests.

      • chipbennett

        If we agree with the basic premise that our issue is with the illegal part of illegal immigration, then how is failing to give preferential treatment to people who are, you know, not legal residents somehow “discriminatory?

        As Rush is so fond of saying: words mean things. Either one is a legal resident, or one is not.

        And I ask this sincerely and not as a challenge to your assertion: can you link to any such fringe Right-Wingers who are anti-immigration as opposed to merely anti-illegal immigration? I am unaware of them, and if they exist, I do need to educate myself about them so that I can counter their fringe arguments.

        (But I stand by my assertion: even if such a fringe exists, they merely serve as the exception that proves the rule regarding mainstream Conservatives’s stance with respect to immigration.)

        • Aaron Gardner

          These people pay taxes, they largely pay the same taxes as other Texas resident. Keep in mind that Texas doesn’t have and income tax.

          Having paid into the coffers of the State how is it not economically discriminatory to then require them to pay a higher rate than other residents of the State?

          As far as the anti-immigrant factions, take a gander at NumbersUSA.

          • Doc Holliday

            they are freaking illegal! I guess you missed when I mentioned people who joined the Army National Guard to get in state tuition and they ended up in a war zone. I guess you don’t care about people who pay an extra zero for their tuition because they are from another state. But criminals can get tuition because they bought a slurpee?

            No one wants Obama to be a one termer more than I do. But I am not going to lie to myself to prop up the wrong man out of desperation. Let me put it plain, I think Perry is done for, I do NOT think he will be our nominee.

          • Aaron Gardner

            I don’t believe that a child brought over the border by his father is rightly classified as a criminal. Sorry.

            Also, there you go again… I am not lying to myself about anything. I read the law, I support the law. I also read and support Arizona’s law. I also support enforcement of our immigration laws so that border states aren’t put into a position of having to deal with this sort of stuff.

            Appreciate you coming back, again, just to call me a desperate liar. So much for the truce.

          • Doc Holliday

            the truce stands. people are popping off left and right to defend Perry out of desperation, I get it. I am not saying his stance is a deal breaker for me, but I do think he wont make it ’til the end.

            I do not think his position stands the logic test, but that alone does not mean I can’t vote for him. I do think his debating skills are so poor that he will be eaten alive. If that does not happen in the primary, the press will finish him.

          • Doc Holliday

            let’s stop this back and forth. I said I would not “lie to myself”, it had nothing to do with you. We have to get off this idea that every comment is attacking the integrity of the other person. I would be “lying to myself” if I tried to square something I know from personal experience is a square. I was not saying that about you. ok?

          • Doc Holliday

            whatever lol.

          • porkandcheese

            The reason our government is so extraordinarily generous to our active duty service members and their families is because they put their lives on the line. What kind of soldier complains about fulfilling their obligation, because they only signed up for the benefits?

            On to your argument. Which criminals are “getting” anything? They don’t get scholarships or grants. They pay, as Texas residents, the same rate as other Texas residents provided they prove they are pursuing citizenship. I keep seeing this argument that there is no path for “illegals.”

            My husband is Canadian. He has an engineering degree from a top tier Canadian university, and he came to New York to get his MFA. He was sponsored by a corporation out of college and lost his job as a result of 911. That made him an “illegal” at some point. He was one of those people who overstayed a visa, because we were waiting for our (then) INS interview for his greencard. We left the country and followed the rules, though it cost us years of our lives and thousands to attorneys. Believe me, I am no fan of amnesty for lawbreakers.

            But the children who are brought here illegally by their parents qualify as refugees. There absolutely is a path for them. In fact, and correct me if I’m wrong, but federal law says you cannot deny them the opportunity to apply to become citizens. If they are are doing this and have applied themselves in their academic pursuits, they should be treated as any other resident student. Not because “they bought a Slurpee,” but because they have contributed to the state economy just as much as other residents, which is why they get the local rate. They are not getting anything they did not earn.

          • radicalrighty

            “I guess you don?t care about people who pay an extra zero for their tuition because they are from another state.”

            Can they NOT go to a college in their own state?

          • JSobieski

            So not giving those people full legal rights (i.e. amnesty) is a form of ecobomic disctrimination as well. Illegal immigrants are entitled to medicare, medicaid, food stamps, disability, SS, etc.

            Either being illegal is a legal status with meaning or being illegal is a person with an overdue library book.

            I really wish my fellow Perry supporters would go with a “we don’t like it but nobodies perfect approach” rather than a “this is all fine and dandy”.

            RS pounded on Huckabee for the same thing that everyone is rushing to defend Perry on now.

            I don’t think this is a huge issue, but it is the biggest negative about Perry’s record that I am aware of. This is a position that is very much in step with Bush-McCain immigration reform, which is de facto amnesty.

          • Aaron Gardner

            If they are paying payroll taxes they are doing so under fraudulent SS numbers. This is a further crime. It isn’t at all the same as paying a sales tax.

            Also, I think it does us no good to define amnesty down the way you are doing.

            We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

          • aesthete

            Personally? I’m one of those squishes who sees illegal immigration in and of itself as no more or less problematic than, well, a traffic violation or an overdue book. I would love to see the children of illegals who have lived here during their formative years get a fast-track towards citizenship, or perhaps be given the choice between their American and Mexican citizenship. However, that view entails not having an absolutist view on such issues — you can’t have it both ways. A conservative would not provide amnesty to a 14-year old murderer. If illegal immigration is to be treated in like manner (and “invasion” imagery implies that many conservatives see it in that light), then it is inconsistent to pardon someone for their illegal status, regardless of age.

          • Doc Holliday

            if it gets me away from some of the people here who are so willing to twist their values into pretzels. You ask an illegal what he wants, he will tell you straight up. Now I come back here after a month and people won’t even face the issues, much less debate them. We need some spines here stat!

            not you sir, just venting to a bud lol.

          • aesthete

            I had a similar thought when we were talking about Perry and Gardasil. Did you know that it’s apparently “pro-life” to confiscate people’s earnings to pay for a vaccine for a non-contagious disease, and then to make a decision in lieu of parents forcing their children to take said vaccine? Me neither, heh.

          • Doc Holliday

            I actually remember when the Gardasil thing happened. Everyone in Texas was calling him a statist and RINO. Not long after this he decided to become this “states rights” guy and go after Obama. It was like his political team told him he had to do something or it was over.

            He went from nanny state guy to state’s rights in a short order. I respect him for being able to do that. But I still think he will NOT be the nominee. He makes Bush seem like Reagan.

          • cjf99b

            Out of all the major issues out there are we going to plant our flag on this? This is a policy based on residency. Texans felt a kid qualifies as a Texas resident for purposes of tuition rates regardless of immigration status as long as they have lived in Texas for 3 years prior to graduating from a Texas high school. As far as I’m concerned, these kids have played by the rules and want to better themselves. They put in the work and pay their own way. Using these kids as a political football to score cheap political points is heartless. Many in our party are either using this as an excuse to bash Perry or taking out their frustration of the very real problem of illegal immigration and border security. As far as the debate, I am more disappointed in Bachman, Santirum and Romney using DNC tactics to bring down another cantidate. They know damn well it’s unrealistic to fence 1200 miles of terrain like that and this Texas policy is not a subsidy. To me, that is disqualifying.

          • chipbennett

            …is clearly on the side of being a burden, rather than a benefit, to the system. So I don’t buy that they’ve paid their worth into the system. Besides: I am of the firm belief that lack of legal status, and therefore lack of legal right to be here, precludes any claim whatsoever with respect to economic rights. Someone pays into the State coffers while being here illegally? Tough cookies.

            I suppose we’re agree-to-disagree on that one…

            Also: I looked up the NumbersUSA site. I’d never heard of them, so I have no context. But from what I can gather quickly perusing their website, they claim to be non-partisan, and appear to be forthright about not discriminating against immigrants, or against immigration itself, but take issue with rate of immigration. I didn’t read enough to know if I agree or disagree with their policy stance, but nothing there appeared at first blush to be blatantly fringe-anti-immigration?

            But mostly: I don’t see how NumbersUSA is explicitly right-wing?

          • Aaron Gardner

            You should be able to provide this via a Texas study if this is such a clearly known fact. Please, provide it.

          • chipbennett

            …if you have reasons to believe that Texas is significantly different from the nation as a whole, I’d gladly entertain them. Otherwise, here’s the “top-line”:

            Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.

            I did find this report, but I’m still reading through it. So far, its projections appear to rely heavily on unfounded revenue assumptions.

          • aesthete

            Texas government is paid for through sales and property taxes (both of which are paid by illegals). The programs funded by Texan taxes are, likewise, different from those funded by the federal government.

        • http://www.redstate.com/thesophist TheSophist

          I think, chip, that of course you and Rushand others have the clarity that comes with black and white distinctions. Legal is legal, and illegal is illegal. Period, end of story.

          Problem is that this isn’t such a clear cut issue in the real world. And Americans are pulled to different poles here: one on the side of insisting that our laws be followed, and the other on the side of real human complexity. In such cases, we sometimes let things slide.

          To put into perhaps inappropriate analogies, this issue is like the holding call in football. Blatant cases will be called 100% of the time. But those borderline cases, where there may be an unintentional hold, and no harm is done, the play is unaltered, sometimes the refs let it slide.

          The case of the kid whose parents brought him here illegally, who just wants to go to college, has got to be the grayest of gray areas. To demand that kid be called a criminal, to demand that the people of his community, his state, can’t treat him as one of their own may be legally correct, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

          The cop who tickets the driver speeding to the hospital with his pregnant wife may be enforcing the law, but most of us would just think of him as a prick.

          • chipbennett

            As a Colts fan who must suffer through Dwight Freeney getting held – without call – on just about every single play, I totally understand your analogy. However, this is false dichotomy:

            The case of the kid whose parents brought him here illegally, who just wants to go to college, has got to be the grayest of gray areas. To demand that kid be called a criminal, to demand that the people of his community, his state, can?t treat him as one of their own may be legally correct, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

            As far as I know, nobody is advocating calling that kid a criminal or otherwise vilifying him. We’re just saying that kid shouldn’t be eligible to receive a benefit that should be given only to legal residents.

            Let him apply for citizenship, gain legal status, and go to college. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with taxpayers bearing the burden to subsidize a benefit given as a direct result of that kid’s illegal status.

          • aesthete

            then why should a kid who’s a Texas resident get the subsidy? If you are not disputing that children of illegals are for all intents and purposes Texan in their character, then by what metric should a child who’s a Texas resident get a subsidy for his education? Did he pay more in sales taxes than the “illegal”? Is he inherently more virtuous? I think Doc has a good point above vis a vis the unfairness of having to join the military to get residents’ subsidy, but I think it really applies to everyone: why should residency factor into the price of college, and why should higher education receive subsidies at all?

          • chipbennett

            …dispute the assertion that “children of illegals are for all intents and purposes Texan in their character”.

            If you’re not here legally, then you’re not Texan; you’re not American; you’re an illegal immigrant.

            Being Texan requires being American (possibly a stretch, given the independent bent of Texans – meant as a compliment; I love Texas). Being American – especially being a part of American society, much less being naturalized as an American citizen – requires upholding American principles, including respect for the rule of law.

            An illegal immigrant demonstrates prima facie disrespect for the rule of law; therefore, an illegal immigrant cannot be considered to be a rightful member of American society, and likewise cannot be considered Texan – in character or in any other way.

            The rest of the question – subsidies, etc. – really are outside the scope of relevance here.

          • aesthete

            Have you ever jaywalked? Because both of those are against the law, and Americans do them all the time. If there’s some uniquely American tradition of compulsively following all of the arbitrary dictats laid down by Father Government, I must have missed it. In fact, I thought that a part of the American tradition was that we don’t follow dumb, freedom-limiting rules. If it’s not part of America’s national character, then it sure isn’t part of Texas’ — a region of Mexico which routinely ignored the laws and regulations coming from its central government, and which rebelled when Mexico’s potentates got too imperious and demanding. From Blackstone’s work on common law, to jury nullification, to our Founding Fathers’ shared pastime (smuggling), to the practices of abolitionists in the antebellum South, I would say that “rule of law” tends to be a concept more often followed in the breach than not, when it comes to our most important decisions as a country.

            Rule of law is important, but I would not say it’s all that “American” of a tradition (you could make a good argument for it as a Scandanavian or Manchurian tradition). At any rate, I don’t know how you could say that the child of an illegal immigrant is comporting him or herself in a way that disrespects rule of law, not when the decision to cross the border is one that is made without the child’s consent or comprehension. You might as well say that childrens’ lemonade stands are “un-American” because they aren’t up-to-spec with the latest regulations emanating from the statehouse.

          • acat

            Rule # 0 for making rules, after all, is to not make a rule you know will be broken.

            Mew

          • rightwingmom52

            Most likely we all break a law or two from time to time, but there is also most likely a consequence when and if we are caught, not a benefit (notice I did not say subsidy).

            At what point are the “children” held accountable? At 18 when they are no longer minors and when most would enter college? If we don’t hold illegal immigrants who are not minors accountable for breaking this law, why should we do so for other laws?

            Believe me, I am struggling with this because I do have a heart despite what Perry said (and I’m still a Perry fan who hopes he improves his debating skills).

          • aesthete

            Think about it this way, RWM:

            We know that there are regulations set forth by government, and even the most ornery of conservatives would probably say that we should follow these regulations even if we don’t agree with them. Even if we find them to be unjust, we submit ourselves to them. However, if these business regulations were applied to a child’s lemonade stand, or to his playdates with other children, or whathaveyou, and a cop were to cite the child or take down his lemonade stand, we would, quite rightly, be aghast at the arrogance of requiring a child to pay penance for something that he or she didn’t comprehend, and which was not an imposition on neighbors.

            The same goes for illegal immigration: crossing the border is a one-time offense, and a minor who crossed with his parents might not necessarily do so again as an adult, just as the child with the lemonade stand need not become a white-collar criminal as an adult. The time of transgression is what’s important, and if at that time the illegal was a minor, then I see those two situations as analogous.

            Moving away from philosophy, I think it’s just common sense to say that a child who has grown up and has friends in the US is American at the core. Tossing that child back to Mexico, where he/she might not understand the language, certainly doesn’t understand the culture, and probably doesn’t have too many roots does not seem ideal, to me. It is doubly cruel when one considers that the immigration system makes almost no allowance for low-skill immigrants, whether it be to work or move to the US — and what else is a recently-emancipated minor if not low-skill? Dooming what is, for all intents and purposes, an American kid to living in a third-world country seems unduly harsh to me.

          • Doc Holliday

            libertarian theories would ameliorate so many of these illegal alien concerns. I am not up to it tonight, I am signing off. But I think if we get back to libertarian conservatism and small government, we could stop worrying so much about this issue. All this talk about state benefits for illegals, it is like we libertarians are skipping what we do best. If the state benefits were not there, if each man made his own way, the entire conversation would be quite different, imho.

          • aesthete

          • porkandcheese

            The real way to deter illegal immigration is to do away with jus solis and fine employers who knowingly do not comply with federal law.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            Personally I believe in a large amount of LEGAL immigration but not the way we do it currently. We should be letting in people who have the kind of education and job skills we need for a modern economy.

            We profit from immigration, but illegal immigration has a huge amount of hidden and not so hidden costs.

            And yes, I agree with you, go after the employers.

          • aesthete

            Illegal immigration presents serious problems (as does criminalizing any legitimate and wide-spread economic good), but open borders is a nightmare from a health and national security perspective.

            Wide gates, tall fences has always struck me as a reasonably adult compromise between traditional libertarian and conservative positions on border security and immigration.

          • rightwingmom52

            I agree that these kids are surely American in most ways that matter, if not all, yet once they hit 18, they are breaking the law. So let’s assume that we can all agree on some method of allowing them to stay in the country and work toward citizenship, what do we do with their parents? Do we separate the families? My head says yes but I certainly understand the heartbreak of the situation.

            I’d just like to get past the emotional portion of the debate and hear some practical, reasonable solutions that do not include amnesty. Also, let me point out that almost 100% of the legal immigrants I know are of the mind that everyone should take the same legal path they did. They do not support what Texas has done, and they are quick to point out that if a person’s first act in this country is to break the law by entering illegally, why should we think they will comply with any other laws, including any that reform immigration? It’s just pretty much a non-starter for them.

          • aesthete

            without some form of amnesty, at least for the kids who get dragged along. There are just too many illegals in the system, and they’re too integrated into the economy to remove them easily and humanely. That makes me uncomfortable, but I’m ultimately OK with that so long as it’s a one-time thing — ideally, we would start up a work visa program and crack open ye olde gates for poor immigrants who have no criminal/medical backgrounds to live here going forward. That would provide avenues for immigrants who just want to come here to work to do so, and would hopefully limit illegals to the population that means to do people harm or who just want to get on the welfare rolls. Anything that doesn’t wed American employers with immigrant labor that they traditionally employ is probably not going to work: the demand is just too great, and incentives too numerous for those across the border not to be lured by them.

            Personally, I really liked Mike Pence’s plan for immigration reform: any reform needs to recognize that American business needs both high-skill *and* low-skill immigrants, and that our immigration laws need to allow for both. I greatly sympathize with legal immigrants to the US, because they are the survivors of a horrifically terrible, impersonal and difficult to navigate immigration system. I agree that immigration needs to be legal, but there’s nothing wrong with noting that it’s a giant hassle as it’s set up, and that it is dominated by labor and specific corporate interests — for example, why should the union-dominated Department of Labor be so heavily involved in the immigration process and selection criterion? IMO, making the process easier and more user-friendly is a good way to honor current immigrants for their integrity while providing options for immigrants who should be immigrating and working here legally, rather than immigrating clandestinely (and unintentionally making the task of weeding out bad immigrants that much harder).

            As a side note, opposition to illegal immigration, or support of increased border security, should really be distinguished from being anti-immigration, or from associations with those organizations which seek to have less immigration to the US. It is not in our nature as a country, or even in our best interests, to cut off our supply to immigrants who are a good match for American entrepreneurs and to our institutions — I would rather we get the good mechanical engineers from India or agricultural laborers from Mexico than, say, France.

          • chipbennett

            …we can have a sincere discussion of you seriously would conflate the moral equivalence of illegal immigration to speeding or to jaywalking. Such analogy stretches beyond the breaking point.

          • aesthete

            Let’s say that, as a result of widespread fraud and corruption in government, Barack Obama’s Democratic Party had a reigning and unchallenged majority in the US for ~35 years, and implemented harmful and job-killing legislation such that it impoverished America. In the meantime, Canada has stuck with Stephen Harper (or facsimiles thereof), and has an imperfect but redeemable government which allows the free market to prosper such that jobs are for the most part abundant for anyone who wants one and is willing to work hard and learn. Due to Canada and America’s partnership in the past, a program has been established allowing Americans to work jobs for which there is high demand, and you worked in America through that program as a young man. Is there anything wrong with this scenario so far? The answer has to be no — and if you replace “Democratic Party” with “Partido Revolucionario Institucional” (Industrial Revolutionary Party), the “US” with “Mexico”, and “Canada” with the “US”, then it’s a reasonably pocket history of Mexico from the Mexican Revolution to the end of the Bracero program.

            So now, let’s add another factor: a young, up-and-coming far-left Senator born into wealth who has an ideological problem with “menial” labor, and who sees the work that American businesses want Mexicans to do as exploitative. He, along with his comrades in the unions, certain corporations, and his personal charm and pull in the Senate, are sufficient to get a bill passed which eliminates this program, and which institutes in its place an artificial immigration regime that has as an end goal making America “diverse” as opposed to productive. This is done by emphasizing *living* and *naturalization* opportunities for a small, but “diverse” pastiche of prospective Americans, as opposed to working opportunities for the broad number of immigrants for whom work opportunities, and not Diversity?, is the main draw to emigrate.

            For the Mexican who has been participating in the previous program, if he have been invited by your boss to keep working, and if he have ties to America and a positive relationship with those Americans that he interact with, wouldn’t you consider the government’s new rules to be an bizarre and imperious rupturing of the natural, organic order, rather than an imposition based on some morality? There was no moral component to the composition of Ted Kennedy’s immigration bill; for that matter, there was little democratic input. Most Americans at the time did not know what Ted Kennedy’s reform entailed, and even less cared. Most Americans still don’t know.

            So what is it about unlawful immigration (*not* identity theft, murder, or other issues associated with illegals) that makes it inherently wrong in a way that doesn’t apply to speeding or jaywalking? You may consider the question juvenile, but it has nonetheless remained unanswered. If immigration laws were structured to keep out bad people or people who could cause Americans harm, I could understand their morality. As things stand, it’s mostly structured around giving certain Americans (particularly those belonging to trade unions) an unfair advantage, and around providing certain politically-connected corporations a monopsony on high-skill labor from other countries. Bonus question: why is it not wrong for politicians to arbitrarily deny American businesses in the free market access to one of the critical components for starting a business — labor — based on the quite arbitrary goals of Ted Kennedy’s bill?

          • aesthete

            Don’t misunderstand: rule of law is a utile concept, but its absolutist application is what leads to its ultimate abandonment. There are too many corner cases in the real world, or cases of downright horrific or stupid policies out there to enforce all laws in a realistic way.

            I used to support full enforcement of all public policy, believing that the democratic system would balk at and reject the enormous follies of (or moral problems with) certain laws, but most people, ignorant in public policy as they are, are only aware that there is a problem, not how to fix it or what the problem even is. This is painfully clear when one sees the sorry case of our caselaw on abortion, or our federal drug laws, or a plethora of other topics. Truth be told, if the general public did have that power, then democratic socialism and other government controls on the economy would be formidable rather than laughable. Absolute rule of law applied to all federal and state statutes would make life unlivable. I quite honestly cannot say that I want absolute rule of law applied to my actions and daily life — do you?

            That being the case, it seems to me both unfair and self-harming to require absolute rule of law in the case of immigrants. In many cases illegals became such because they didn’t know what the next step in the process was, or that there was a next step. Don’t believe me? Look up the stats on how many immigrants there are who obtained visas or green cards legally, who didn’t complete the process, and who are living in the US as illegals. Many others come to the US to work, and would take a legal avenue to do so if it were available. More importantly for the case of public policy, Mexican immigrants and certain sectors of the American economy have been wedded for centuries — it is current immigration law, not Mexican immigrants working jobs in America, which is the aberration. Divorcing those two things is much easier said than done — and why should it be done? It makes goods cheaper for Americans, and provides affordable labor to American business, without harming anyone. What makes immigration law a special category that people (especially immigrants) are morally bound to follow, esp when it’s so self-defeating?

          • http://www.redstate.com/thesophist TheSophist

            and a recent immigrant to Texas… my perspective is that the general culture of Texas really is Texan first, then American.

            And you’re free to regard someone as not-an-American because of prima facie violation of the law… but I guess I feel that communities regard people as their own based on their own evaluation. That’s not a LEGAL matter, but a CULTURAL/SOCIAL one.

            I’m just sayin’, I really think most Texans regard these kids as Texan. You can fault ‘em for it, but that doesn’t change the reality of their views. Again, 181 legislators, 4 dissents.

          • chipbennett

            …and I agree that Texans are Texans. I greatly respect Texas for that culture.

            But as much as I respect the American by birth; Texan by the grace of God culture, that culture cannot, in practical application, subvert federal immigration laws.

            So, while I’m all for Texans self-directing the expenditure of their own coffers, I reserve the right to disagree with the propriety of a given policy. Further, while I can support Texans passing such a law in the sovereign State of Texas, the scope of such support is limited to the state of Texas, and does not extend to the federal level.

          • http://www.redstate.com/thesophist TheSophist

            First, my condolences to the Colts fan on your 2011 season.

            Second, does it make any difference to you that the program requires this kid to apply for citizenship? Yes, in a perfect world, we’d have this minor become a legal resident first, and then apply to UT Austin to get the in-state rate. But in the gray we’re inhabiting now, wouldn’t you have to agree that this particular law affecting this particular kind of illegal immigrant is probably not a big problem?

            Third, and this is probably a point that would get me in trouble here… but let me make it nonetheless….

            Shouldn’t it be okay for Texans to decide that this person who is here in violation of Federal statutes is nonetheless more of a resident of Texas, a fellow Texan, than someone from New Jersey who is the child of legal immigrants?

            The benefit you’re speaking of isn’t the direct result of the kid’s illegal status, but as a direct result of the kid’s residency in and contact with the state of Texas: he had to have been here at least 3 years and graduated from a Texas high school.

            Again, I’m conceding that following black letter law, the kid is in violation of law. At the same time, I think you’re hardly upset about this kid. It seems to be a matter of timing here. The law requires the kid to apply for citizenship in order to qualify for in-state rates; you want the kid to gain legal status first, in order to qualify.

            Can we at least agree we’re not talking worlds of differences here, or major philosophical weakness on the issue of securing our borders and enforcing our laws?

          • chipbennett

            (I appreciate the condolences; but I remember the Jeff George years – and earlier; we’ll live on to fight another day – and I’ll still cheer them on every week, no matter our chances of winning.)

            My problem with the “path to citizenship” requirement is that it appears to be both a non-starter and not especially enforceable. Since someone not in the country legally isn’t eligible for the normal avenues of naturalization, the requirement appears to be more of a “apply, and hope for amnesty” measure. Also: a “signed affidavit” to pursue citizenship when eligible? IF one ever becomes eligible, the State might as well have made him pinky swear.

            As for the third issue: I would like to be careful to separate the States-rights issue of Texas’ right to pass the law, and focus only on the matter of propriety of the policy itself. I certainly concede that Texas had every right to pass the law.

            But more to your point: my problem with the policy is that it incentivizes illegal immigrants (if we can get there, and not get caught for 3 years, our children can get a sweet, in-state tuition benefit!). And by incentivizing illegal immigration, you increase the chance that you get more rapist-murderers along with those laborers and students.

            The path to securing our borders lies in just the opposite: in disincentivizing illegal immigration. If would-be illegal immigrants know that they won’t get a job, or free public education, or access to social services, they will be far less inclined to attempt to immigrate illegally.

            Also, given that one of the foundational principles of citizenship should be respect for the rule of law, I find it incongruous for one to remain in the country without legal status to be here, while simultaneously claiming to want to be a contributing member of society. Without respect for the rule of law, there is no society.

            I agree that we’re not talking worlds of difference. Ultimately, this whole difference-of-opinion among conservatives would be much less of an issue without the “heartless” comment. I think the vast majority of digital ink being spilled today is a direct result of that one assertion.

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

            the kid who didn’t have any say on being here illegally, but wants to pursue the path to citizenship (to correct the wrong, so to speak), shouldn’t be punished.

            I also think this law attempts to help the situation the feds are ignoring.

            The only ones taking advantage of this are the ones who truly want to become citizens. (Clearly the only one percent shows this, to me anyway. YMMV)

            I believe they have to prove they are on the path to citizenship the whole way, just like any other college grant program requires grades to be kept in the decent range of passing.

            And, again, we shouldn’t be arguing Texas’ right to pass the law. (Not that you were.)

          • acat

            Especially your sentence “Without respect for the rule of law, there is no society”.

            This, specifically, is not accurate unless you’re interpreting “law” pretty broadly, i.e. broadly enough to cover “the word of the tribe leader is law”; and the rest of your argument is built on a more narrow interpretation, i.e. “what is written is law”. Heck, stupidlaws.com has quite a collection of laws that are both written and not respectable.

            I suspect this is because you’re ignoring the different sub-groups of illegal immigrants, but .. it’s late and I’ve much to do manyana.

            Mew

          • chipbennett

            I’m not sure why it rankles.

            When I refer to the principle of the Rule of Law, I’m not referring to any specific legal statues, but rather the principle that a society must agree to be bound by a known set of rules by which that society agrees to operate. the point is not that adherence to this principle requires agreement with every bit of minute statute in the law books, but rather acceptance that disagreement with such statues is not sufficient grounds to disregard those statues – and that one must follow the proscribed means of changing statutes with which one does not agree.

            Part of respecting the principle of the Rule of Law is respecting that a society has the right to define how others are accepted as members of that society. To that end, demonstrating respect for American society requires attempting to attain legal status as a resident/member of society.

          • acat

            Or the video I posted below.

            We are already past the point where we’re disregarding certain statutes.

            Why should we be surprised, then, that some are choosing – and have been doing so longer than either of us have been alive – unless you’re the world’s oldest man, I’m not looking it up – to disrespect immigration laws?

            Mew

          • http://www.redstate.com/thesophist TheSophist

            This is maybe the crux of the matter, Chip, but… that’s where the two contradictory impulses of Americans really come into play.

            On the one hand, we want to enforce our laws and secure our borders. So eliminating incentives for people to break our laws is a good idea.

            On the other hand, as a people, we want to incentivize good honest folks to come here.

            That’s what makes this ‘gray area’ case so hard, and why I think it’s inadvisable for the GOP to take such a black-and-white, hardline stance on it.

            “Hey, if you can manage to avoid capture for three years, then your kid can go to college in Texas paying the in-state tuition rate” is the kind of incentive that doesn’t draw the undesirable elements (gangbangers, freeloaders, etc.) but the desirable types.

            Yes, of course it is still incentivizing lawbreaking — but most Americans would look at the lawbreakers involved and feel at least sympathy if not outright admiration.

            (PS, Appreciate the civil discourse on this, even as we disagree in parts)

          • chipbennett

            And I agree that we’re not that far off. I think that, mainly, we disagree in implementation and tactics for accomplishing a common goal.

            What about a special student-visa program? (I know that there are federal-law issues; just thinking out loud.) For me, the issue is a matter of correcting the legal status, and then incentivizing desirable immigration (even conceding, for the sake of argument, that 100% of illegal-immigrant students fall into the desirable classification).

            Maybe I would state it this way: in my opinion, an illegal immigrant cannot demonstrate a desire to be considered a “desirable” immigrant without first demonstrating a desire to attain legal status, as evidenced by taking whatever measure required to attain that status.

            I should also note that I understand the landscape, and I abhor our asinine enforcement policies of federal law that seem to embody the worst of all possibilities, and that put states like Texas in an untenable situation. But I also know that acting against/outside of principle must be done judiciously, and must be done knowing that such action almost invariably incurs unintended consequences.

            (And, likewise on the sentiment regarding civil discourse. The most saddening part of watching this issue being discussed here at Red State is seeing the ease with which discourse has often failed to meet that standard.)

          • porkandcheese

            is calling the kid a criminal. Don’t dance around the issue.

          • chipbennett

            …perhaps I should re-phrase to say that nobody is advocating making a particular pariah of such a child.

            In truth: an illegal immigrant is a criminal, because, well, that person is committing a crime. That statement is inherently a legal, not a moral issue. Therein, I think, lies the issue: I ascribe no moral connotation to stating “an illegal immigrant is a criminal”, whereas, I suspect, you do.

            We can agree to disagree on that point, but understand that such moral connotation is a false premise when arguing any point I’ve made.

            I’m certainly not dancing around the issue. I advocate rectifying the illegal status of an illegal immigrant, however appropriate under law. If there is a path for an illegal immigrant to attain legal status, then I’m all for it. On the other hand, if the only way to restore the legal status of a given illegal immigrant is to deport that person, then so be it. Deport him, and let him then attempt to re-enter the country legally.

            The point is restoring the legal status of the person, not vilifying the person. There are enough people who vilify themselves through villainous actions (illegal immigrant or otherwise); we don’t need to seek out others.

  • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

    Calling people “heartless” is a cheap end around in a serious political debate about who gets benefits we all pay for and who does not.

    So is accusing your political opponents of having no more basis for your position than “not liking someone with a name that sounds like yours.”

    It’s what I expect the left to stoop to.

    • chipbennett

      …for Perry due to that comment. Calling those who have a sincere disagreement in principle “heartless” is ad hominem demagoguery, and cannot be attributed to “poor debate performance”. It belies a fundamental belief system that dangerously resembles W’s “compassionate conservatism”.

      Of course, I want nothing to do with Obama-Lite Romney, and I believe that the economic and fiscal issues far outweigh illegal immigration issues at this critical juncture in our nation’s history. So Perry still has my support; it’s just merely a bit more tempered after last night.

      • Aaron Gardner

        I think Perry was wrong for saying that and was clearly frustrated. Unfortunate.

        • http://www.redstate.com/thesophist TheSophist

          I too was disappointed in that. Hope he gets clearer for the future.

        • chipbennett

          …this whole thing. As thesophist pointed out, there are other arguments he can use to defend that law. I may or may not agree with those arguments, but at least they can be made in good faith.

          I’m not (and doubtfully ever will be) at the Michelle Malkin level of opposition to Perry. (I think such opposition is short-sighted, especially absent promotion of any viable alternatives.) Perry is solid on the issues that I believe to be most important – and I think Romney is atrocious on those same issues.

          (My first choice is Cain, but I don’t see a path to nomination or election for him. Bear in mind: I’ve voted for Allen Keys in every primary in which he’s run.)

    • porkandcheese

      These students pay an in-state rate just like other residents.

  • daveoconnor

    then Romneycare is a MASSACHUSETTS thing and Gov Perry by your line of argument ought to avoid criticizing Romney about it.

    But that is absurd since any reasonable person will look at an elected official’s record and draw conclusions.

    Gov Perry’s “heartless” comment cooked him as far as I’m concerned. I expect that kind of finger pointing from those schooled in Leninist political diversion. “Heartless” is not a political argument.

    Perhaps he learned it from Mexican politicos who love to blame their northern neighbor for Mexico’s vast failures that are the real cause of much illegal immigration.

    • http://www.redstate.com/thesophist TheSophist

      I’m really rather open to the argument that we shouldn’t hold Romneycare against Romney as much as some do, because it was a state program done by a state governor.

      I have rather different issues with Romney than his healthcare plan in and for MA.

      FWIW, I don’t think Perry thought that one through; I doubt he’d practiced the “you’re heartless” line in debate prep. I think that one just came from his heart. Maybe that disqualifies him in your eyes. But as I’ve said above, to me, this is the sort of temperance of justice by mercy that makes sense.

      • Xasteius

        Obamacare took a lot from Romneycare. Both are bad ideas on the state and federal level. If Mitt came out and said something like “Masscare is the best I could come up with in a very liberal state, and it doesn’t work there, and it won’t work at the federal level. I will leave medical insurance decisions to the 50 laboratories of democracy called the states. When I get into office, I will repeal Obamacare.” But Romney hasn’t, and will never make such a statement.

        Perry could make a similar argument about his immigration policy: “the legislature ,with 4 exceptions, voted for this. I couldnt have vetoed it. I could have governed by EO, but I respected the will of the people. Furthermore, the US government won;t let us deport the illegals we have, so this policy have to make do. As president, I will secure the border…(insert favorite platitude).” I actually think that he meant to say this in his ‘you don;t have a heart’ statement, but once you misspeak in politics, you’ve lost half the battle.

        I’d accept a statement like that

  • westcoastpatriette

    your diary is, for the most part, insulting.

    Once again, conservatives have been lulled into a stupor by liberal rhetoric and don’t even seem able to debate this issue from an American point of view. By that I mean–we are allowing the discussion to focus primarily on the humanitarian needs of all of the people who want to come to this country on their own terms. The debate needs to be focused on immigration policies that are in the best interest of America.

    The issue has been so politicized for so long that most citizens are kept in the dark by public officials regarding most of the negative aspects of uncontrolled illegal immigration.

    Case in point:

    In California

    1. .Approx. 3 million illegal aliens now reside in the state.

    2. Cost to educate, medicate and incarcerate them: $22
    billion per year.

    3. Approx. 25-30% of prisoners in the state are illegal aliens.

    4. Our schools have dropped in quality from the best to the
    worst in the nation partly due to the large influx of
    non-English speaking students who require extra help.
    Our high school drop-out rate has soared.

    5. In the last six months, the following two incidents are
    not uncommonly reported:

    a. A nine year old girl was kidnapped out of her bed in
    the middle of the night (in the middle of winter), was
    brutally raped, dumped in the street half-naked and
    left for dead by an illegal immigrant.

    b. ICE busted a smuggling ring and discovered a drop
    house crammed with 40 people in a nice neighbor-
    hood in a nice part of town.

    Both of these incidents took place approx. two miles from my home.

    Allowing this problem to go unaddressed and allowed to fester has created an underground culture of lawlessness that affects each one of us every day. There are numerous reports of illegals causing automobile accidents and the non-enforcement and “leave them alone–they are only trying to make a better life for themselves” mindset makes law-enforcement hesitant to hold them accountable and many times they will tell the American victim there is nothing that can be done about it and let them go. When was the last time you caused an accident while driving without a license and were let go? It happens frequently in Cali.

    It is also a myth that illegals are only doing jobs Americans won’t do. They are dragging wages down in many different trades as they are willing to work for much less than the rest of us. You are blind and stupid if you think this is not affecting the job market. Our youth are competing with illegal aliens for jobs all the time and now, many employers require you to be bi-lingual to get a job.

    And you come along, Sophist, insulting those Americans who are tired of the assault and are demanding that the authorities act to protect us first. What is wrong with this picture?

    By the way, the nine year old little girl survived the assault but most of the time we never hear another word about the assailant due to political needs to protect illegal aliens at all costs.

    • http://www.redstate.com/thesophist TheSophist

      Your attitude is precisely why I wrote this.

      What parallel do you find exactly between the criminals in CA jails, the kidnapping rapist, and the smuggling ring and a kid whose parents brought him here at seven, who grew up in Dallas like any other Texas kid, who now wants what all Americans striving to make it want: a college education?

      Could we not agree that all those smugglers, criminals, and the likened to be expelled, that our borders be secured, that our immigration laws enforced, without jumping on the case of the wannabe Longhorn?

      Do you really see no difference between the two kinds of illegals?

      By the way, if you really are insulted by this post, I rather think you should learn not to be offended so easily. A Yale feminist got nothing on you for taking easy offense…

      • westcoastpatriette

        Illegal is illegal is illegal is illegal.

        Americans should not be made responsible for what happens to the children of illegal aliens. Not my fault they chose to break our laws.. And your attempts to shame me or make me feel guilty or responsible for them in any way will never work.

        • http://www.redstate.com/thesophist TheSophist

          You see no difference between MS-13 members who cross the border to setup drug distribution networks and the 13-year old brought here by her parents, who just wants to go to college.

          I guess I’ll just say… trying to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you to vote for a candidate who holds the two equivalent… good luck with that.

          I for one think it’s a political loser, and a particularly puritanical, martinet-like position to take.

          Americans should not be made responsible, true. But if Americans, or in this case, TEXANS *choose* to become responsible by their own legislative actions… why is that so offensive to you in California?

          Out of curiosity, what IS your position on _LEGAL_ immigration?

          • westcoastpatriette

            I have to go off-line for a few hours but when I return I will answer some of your questions.

          • onemovoter

            The differences between idealism and reality.

            This is the reason why so many people when looking at a record of a Governor find quite a few things to object to that they did during their term/s. What most people don’t see in government is the “sausage making” of compromise that goes on between competing interests.

            Reagan had to do this quite a bit while Governor of California during his time and as President while having to deal with Democrats in congress. I want things to be as ideal as possible but know in the end we have to be practical.

            I’ve been tracing the origin of all the illegal immigration problems that the states have. Of what I have found is that as typical, it comes back to a one size fits all ruling about education through the public sector. From there everything else from the federal government has been dictated to the states, even if it contradicts other federal laws.

            Would we like to see Texas enforce laws of the US constitution and the Texas constitution. Yes, and in fact they are following both as laid out by Congress. The tuition law that Texas passed along with 9 other states, does fall within the guide lines of federal law and the powers of the states themselves. Otherwise wouldn’t the federal government have filed a lawsuit against them to have Texas and the other states remove it?

            I have supported other laws that states were passing so they could do the work that the federal government wasn’t doing. When they filed lawsuits, I was pissed, and started to do research on the issues. I even went back to Prop 187 in California to see why that was shot down. I found it all went back to a 1982 case that forced states to provide for everyone no matter their status.

            Until a congress gets elected and passes a repeal of such laws and a president signs it, the states will be stuck with very limited powers and very few options. This is why I have been trying to explain to others that wanting to have the federal and state governments do what’s in the constitution is not the same as what we all feel to be right. We know what is right, it’s just not in the Constitution…. Yet.

            For the time being, I’m going to be my pragmatist self.

          • onemovoter

            I’m not sure if you said so, but isn’t there a big difference between “residency” of a state and a “citizen” of the USA?

            I haven’t completely looked up all the laws that apply but I think the different levels of laws can be applied even if the upper level such as federal hasn’t been.

          • http://www.redstate.com/thesophist TheSophist

            And I’m really not unsympathetic to those who want to take a hardline stance on this. I think I’m pretty hardline as things go, and want enforcement first, want a border fence, want the army stationed right on our borders, and so on. (I don’t quite understand why we’d need “border partrol” agents… isn’t the national military precisely that “border patrol”?)

            But as you point out, in this case, I think some people are making the perfect the enemy of the good and making a political mistake.

            The not-so-committed voter isn’t going to look at a candidate who wants to punish the kids of illegals for the sins of their parents as a strong law-and-order type, but as a heartless no-room-for-discretion jerk. Of course, the Left and their race-activists will use far stronger language and demonize the position… but that’s another post…

          • westcoastpatriette

            and after giving it a little more thought, I would like to ask you a few questions.

            After all of the documented facts I gave you indicating the horrendous, harmful effects of uncontrolled illegal immigration in our country–using California’s statistics to make the case–your only response to me is that I have an attitude? Are you incapable of acknowledging the facts or are you in so much denial you are unable to be rational about this issue? Are you so invested in being a “compassionate conservative” that you refuse to face facts?

            You seem to have bought into your fantasy world that there are two different kinds of illegals and that the good ones are saints whose only crime is wanting a better life. Don’t you understand the 40 people busted by ICE are those so-called good ones that you seem to think are so innocent. They pay coyotes to bring them here, and then are many times held hostage in the drop houses until any relatives they can find pay a ransom to let them go. They then spread out across America blatantly flipping off the rule of law.

            And you have the audacity to talk to me like there is something wrong with me because I am unable to distinguish between good illegals and bad illegals. If they sneaked into our country to get here and continuing sneaking around to stay here, they are not the kind of people we should allow to immigrate here. Period.

            The only people we should allow in are the ones who play by the rules from the start. We should screen them to make sure they are going to contribute to our nation as law-abiding citizens. Making excuses for the law breaking ones is further evidence that you are in denial and don’t know what you are talking about.

          • http://www.redstate.com/thesophist TheSophist

            Our difference is fairly stark, I think, and not that complicated.

            You think that a MS-13 gangster is the same as the college applicant, because they’re both illegal. I don’t.

            That isn’t “compassionate conservatism” or whatever label you want to attach, but simple reality. There isn’t a person in the country who thinks that the drug gang rapist murderer is the same category as a 17 year old brought here by her parents at 12 who just wants to go to college and pay the in-state rate. There isn’t.

            And to the extent that you just ignore the reality of the difference between the two kinds of illegals, you’re going to alienate everyone who doesn’t think exactly as you do. I don’t call that a recipe for political success.

            YMMV. It obviously does.

          • westcoastpatriette

            and you keep bringing it up to try to minimize the seriousness of all illegal immigration and rationalize away the fact that they are all criminals. That’s right criminals. And they engage in serious criminal enterprises to get here and to stay here. All of them. Otherwise, they could not survive here. And you refuse to see that and instead want to self-righteously look down on people who call a spade a spade. Ever heard the word “elitist?” You sound just like one when discussing this issue.

    • aesthete

      What fatuous nonsense. This “jobs” business wrt immigration is based on the same logic of unions: that government is obliged to “protect” the arbitrary benefits + wages packages that they have negotiated by locking “scabs” (or in this case, immigrants) out of the labor market through legal fiat.

      • chipbennett

        …I would say that government absolutely should lock illegal immigrants out of the labor market. In fact, I believe current federal law does precisely that – if only it were enforced.

        As for the impact of illegal immigrants on the labor market: simple laws of supply and demand. The flood of labor increases the supply of labor relative to the demand for labor, ergo the labor wage drops. Eliminate that part of the supply that has no legal right to participate in the market, and the labor wage will rise.

        • aesthete

          There are great reasons to oppose illegal immigration, but using it as a method to thwart the free market ain’t it — and that’s always what’s implied in the “illegals take Americans’ jobs” argument.

          Who pays the American citizens’ increased wage when they successfully lock out their competition through government force? Same people who pay the increased wages that unions negotiate: consumers and businesses. There is a provable, economic “deadweight loss” to having a monopoly on a certain good, as unions do. The same is true in the case of immigration law. Here’s a question: do you have a problem with paying GM If an American isn’t willing to work at the wage that businesses and consumers are willing to pay in a free market, that’s his problem, not mine. I honestly don’t have much sympathy for someone who wants to use government to push down a poor person to support his own grossly overpaid position.

          • chipbennett

            Labor unions artificially increase labor wage, just as illegal immigration flooding the labor market artificially decreases the labor wage.

            In both cases, natural market forces are being constrained artificially, preventing them from determining the optimal labor wage, based on the aggregate result of market forces – including consumer demand for goods relative to costs incurred due to the labor wage.

            In other words: I am in favor of eliminating both causes of artificial constraint on the labor wage, because both have an adverse impact on market forces.

          • aesthete

            A free market in labor is, quite simply, a market wherein all sellers and buyers can participate without outside constraints. Government forcing would be sellers (immigrants, illegal or otherwise) out of the market for the purpose of artificially raising the wage of politically-connected interests is a textbook case of both government restrictions on free markets and collusion. You are not making an economic argument, but rather, are engaging in sophistry which basically states, “the good kind of market activity that I like is free, and the bad kind that I don’t like is artificial”. It’s semantic garble worthy of our liberal friends who invented the concept of “positive liberty”.

          • defenseconservative

            I’m really amazed (and I’m hardly the only one) that so-called conservatives (including Tom Tancredo and Michelle Malkin) are gladly willing to betray their touted economically conservative principles when it comes to immigrants. Sorry, folks. You can’t be pro-free markets some of the time and anti-free markets some of the time.

          • chipbennett

            …are not “immigrants”.

            They have no legal right to be here; and they have no right to either legal or economic standing. They are an inappropriate, illegal influence on the country’s markets.

            That statement is not a disregard for free-market principles. The very concept of national sovereignty is a valid, rightful constraint on free markets – just as the Constitution itself is a valid, rightful constraint on free markets.

          • defenseconservative

            But those who are in this country LEGALLY are immigrants. And what Tancredo and Malkin advocate is not just fighting illegal immigration, but also a moratorium on LEGAL immigration.

            As I said, you can’t be pro-free markets some of the time and anti-free markets some of the time.

          • chipbennett

            Can we please keep the discussion within the bounds of illegal immigration?

            We get enough conflation of legal and illegal immigration from the left and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself..). Such conflation is an intentional non sequitur, to change to topic of debate (see also: adult vs. embryonic stem cells).

          • chipbennett

            Any country, as a sovereign nation, has the right – and the vested interest – in deciding who has the right to be in the country legally, thereby deciding who gets to participate in its markets.

            Anyone who is not in the country legally does not have a right to participate in the country’s markets; therefore, their influence on the markets is inappropriate.

            Borders mean something. Sovereignty means something. Supporting the right of a sovereign nation to enforce its borders, thereby insulating its citizens (and economic markets) from what it deems to be inappropriate influence is not tacit disregard for free-market principles.

          • aesthete

            which is that, whatever other merits there are to restricting immigration, economics is *definitely* not one of them. You’re making an argument that illegal immigrants do not have the moral legitimacy to participate in the free market, which is a different argument from whether or not restricting them from participating is a limitation of free markets. The former is debatable; the latter is not.

          • chipbennett

            …presumably a counter to my point, which was that illegal immigration has an adverse impact on the labor market.

            You countered by saying that the concept of using immigration law as an artificial constraint on the labor market was contrary to free-market principles. I merely explained why such constraint is not contrary to free-market principles.

            I assume that your underlying point was that illegal immigration does not represent an adverse impact to the labor market, because it it a natural force acting on the market? I merely attempted to explain why illegal immigration is by definition not a natural force acting on the labor market; therefore, it is fully justifiable to conclude that illegal immigration adversely impacts the labor market, and doing so does not in any way violate free-market principles.

          • aesthete

            Not a single economist, liberal or conservative, would agree with what you just said. Labor and capital, but especially labor, are the most natural and base of all inputs in the free market. If their forced exclusion from the market, when there is a willing buyer, is “natural”, or their participation in the market “artificial”, then nothing in the free market is natural and all is artificial.

            To address another point, the “adverse impact” in the labor market from immigrants is minimal compared to the gain that consumers and American businesses experience. More importantly, allowing immigrants to freely trade their labor is critical for labor markets to reach stable, natural equilibriums, and for Americans to maximize their comparative advantage in the labor market.

          • Doc Holliday

            unions, minimum wages, even professional licensing skew free markets. And the welfare state has wreaked havoc on all but the wealthy. And then you have other “artificial markets”. For example, what is “poor” in America is tens times better off than poor in Mexico. So illegals will come even without market forces demanding their labor; the relatively rich welfare state is also pulling them to El Norte.

            I am not saying people risk it all to become welfare recipients. I am saying that our welfare state sustains those who come here and can’t make it another way. If we dismantled all that distorts the free market, it would help all who come to this nation.

          • aesthete

            and in no way resembles the “they took our jobs” nonsense that got passed off as a serious economic argument above. Additional labor inputs in and of themselves cannot harm a free market system and a free market in labor is a fundament of a functional free market in other goods, after all.

          • Doc Holliday

            I saw what for you was a heated title, and zoomed right in. I will check the thread for context. I can be bad about that, comment titles draw me in from time to time.

          • chipbennett

            …anything resembling a “they took our jobs” argument.

            You seem to want to ascribe straw men to me, rather than address the points I was actually making.

            I’m not making an economic argument, but rather a national sovereignty argument in stating that illegal immigrants adversely impact the labor market. I never mentioned taking “our” jobs, but rather depression of the labor wage.

            Are you failing to grasp the difference, or intentionally changing the subject, because your “they took our jobs” straw man is easier to argue against than the point I was actually making?

          • aesthete

            “Depression” of the labor wage (more accurately, the true market wage) has absolutely nothing to do with sovereignty — not a single thing. If you want to make an argument for national sovereignty, then by all means, make one. The person who kick-started the thread said the following: “It is also a myth that illegals are only doing jobs Americans won?t do. They are dragging wages down in many different trades[...] Our youth are competing with illegal aliens for jobs all the time[...]” That is the classic “they took our jobs” argument. There is no point in saying that Americans would possibly do a job at a wage higher than the wages immigrants currently work for unless one has a problem with immigrants working (one might say “taking”) those jobs.

            As far as depressed wages go, it is a problem that is at this point mostly theoretical — discussion of depressed wages among economists almost exclusively focuses on high-school dropouts, given the lack of evidence for same among other groups. Even in this rather select group, the most I have ever seen from any economic study has been an 8% drop in wages among that category from immigration. Quite frankly, that’s not something that concerns me, especially when one considers the obvious benefits which a greater pool of labor provides American businesses and consumers.

          • chipbennett

            …is simple:

            If you want to make an argument for national sovereignty, then by all means, make one.

            A sovereign nation has established borders, and exercises the right to determine whom may cross its borders, and whom may remain within its borders. A sovereign nation exercises the right to determine whom may immigrate to that nation. Therefore, a sovereign nation has the right to dictate the participants in its economy’s labor market.

            Thus, the size of the labor market supply is a direct function of the number of citizens, plus the number of legal immigrants. This constraint on the labor market supply is just, right, and proper. Therefore, it defines the natural state of the labor market.

            (Note: in this regard, immigration laws act no more unnaturally or improperly on market forces than do, say, anti-monopoly laws or price-fixing laws.)

            Therefore, any direct outside influence on the labor market supply – primarily, an increase in supply via illegal immigration – acts unnaturally on the labor market, and any unnatural force acting on a market, by definition, adversely impacts that market.

            ?Depression? of the labor wage (more accurately, the true market wage) has absolutely nothing to do with sovereignty ? not a single thing.

            As demonstrated above, this statement is demonstrably false. The “true market wage” is the wage reached when the labor market is acted upon only by its natural forces of supply and demand. As demonstrated, the true market supply is a direct function of the number of a nation’s citizens plus the number of that nation’s legal immigrants.

            That sum determines the “true market wage” because it constitutes the natural forces on the market. The impact of illegal immigration is an artificial force on the labor market; therefore, any impact illegal immigration has on the market results in an artificial labor wage.

          • aesthete

            Your first and second sentences are perfect, and I fully agree with them. Beyond that? Not so much, unfortunately. Sovereignty is merely the moral legitimacy of government to act: it has everything to do with civics and politics, and not a thing to do with economics, as it is a moral and normative imperative, *not* an economic one.

            In microeconomics perfect competition (what economists posit as the “ideal” free market) is defined as follows: “a market condition in which a product is traded freely by buyers and sellers in large numbers without any individual transaction affecting the price”. It’s characterized by full information on the part of all participants, no barriers to entry, and a large number of buyers and sellers. Notice the absence of any political systems being referenced in the above example.

            Government actions excluding market participants are by definition a barrier to entry; a barrier whose cost is whatever it costs to bribe/avoid the law — whichever is cheaper. (This explains the black market in the case of goods and services and illegal immigration in the case of the special good of labor.) *Every* analysis of government action in microeconomics asks *what* government action does to a market already in perfect competition. The size of the labor market in perfect competition is most definitely not “a direct function of the number of citizens, plus the number of legal immigrants”: it is comprised of whoever is willing to sell their labor, period.

            I really don’t know why you need to misuse economic terminology so terribly, if you just want to say that you don’t think illegals have an inherent right to work in the US. That is a fine argument to make. Bizarre attempts to redefine the supply curve in perfect competition, or to define government action as “natural” and demand-driven immigration as “unnatural” are completely unnecessary to make that point. Obviously, you would not be making this point if government restricted the legal pool of labor to those approved by unions, or if they restricted blacks from certain occupations; among other arguments, you would probably point out the economic harm that both would cause, and those principles don’t end at border’s edge.

          • chipbennett

            …is only theoretical. I am speaking in terms of the real world. The theoretically perfect market is irrelevant (such a market has not, does not, and will never exist); I was describing the in-practice perfect market.

            But really, at this point, we are talking semantics: perfect/imperfect, natural/unnatural. I don’t need to “misuse economic terminology” to say that I don’t think illegal immigrants have an inherent right to work in the U.S.; I’ve made that assertion explicitly, and will do so again: illegal immigrants don’t have an inherent right to work in the U.S.

            The point I was trying to make is that, because illegal immigrants don’t have a right to work in the U.S., their participation in the labor market adversely impacts the market for those people who do have a right to work in the U.S., because illegal immigrants illegally participating in the labor market lower the labor wage for those participating legally.

            (Just to be explicit: this is a supply-side assertion; all else equal, a lowered labor wage benefits the labor market demand.)

            So, if you want to discuss/argue that point, then great; but if you want to continue to hide behind the theoretical economic definition of the perfect market, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

          • chipbennett

            …I replied to your later comment, since you much more nakedly demonstrate in that comment that you’ve erected a straw man, rather than address anything I’ve actually said.

          • westcoastpatriette

            Couldn’t help but follow your discussion with aesthete. He/she seems to have some blind spots in his/her thinking that resemble how some libertarians think. They so isolate a principle that it becomes impossible to look at the bigger picture.

            Not saying he/she is a libertarian–but the arguments sound like the kinds of things they would say.

          • aesthete

            than with being a libertarian. There’s no principle being isolated, here: in fact, all that I am doing is regurgitating the arguments of Bastiat, Hayek, etc regarding what is seen and unseen, and how that applies to the labor market. From an economic standpoint, there is no difference between a union-negotiated contract requiring a closed shop, and anti-immigrant activists requiring that preference be given to them when it comes to job opportunities.

            From a moral standpoint, there may well be a reason to remove a person from the labor market due to something else — for example, it is in society’s best interest to lock up a convicted rapist, even if he is a rocket engineer whose skills are in high demand in the labor market. However, that is a *moral* argument, not an economic argument: it would be silly to claim that locking up rapists is economically efficient because said rapist would in the absence of incarceration be willing to work for lower wages than a regular joe in a given career. It also trivializes the moral issues at play. The same applies to illegals: there are some darned good arguments against illegal immigration, but none of them have to do with economics.

          • chipbennett

            …using non-sequitur, inflammatory rhetoric such as “anti-immigrant activists”, we cannot have a rational discussion.

            The fundamental premise of my original comment is that a sovereign nation has every right to dictate whom is allowed to participate in its labor markets; thus, the sovereign nation defines the the natural and unnatural participants. Illegal immigrants, by definition, adversely impact the labor market, because they are illegal participants, and therefore unnatural forces acting on the market.

            It has nothing to do with legal immigrants, because the sovereign nation has defined them as welcome participants in the labor market.

            If you continue to demonstrate an inability to grasp the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, I will not engage further.

    • GregInFla

      Your diary expresses my views exactly. For those who criticize the law, I recommend you write your Texas legislators and express your disagreement. For those without said legislators, find another issue.

      The difference between this law and Romneycare is in the outcomes: I’ve heard no one complaining in Texas of direct, documented, negative consequences of the Texas dream act. With Romneycare, its negative consequences have been well-publicized.

      • GregInFla

        Not sure how it got posted this way.

        Then again, since I agree with TheSophist, it might be appropriate.

  • runner12

    You have given me a lot to think about. Well done.

  • wacowboy

    I’ve been wanting to write some thoughts about this topic since the CNN/tea party debate. This topic is one that conservatives need to handle carefully or we will hang ourselves as the party of old white people. What we need is a strategy that leads MORE immigrants to see the light of conservative ideology.

    I think where a lot of difficulty has been had on this topic is in the realm of philsophy vs. reality. it is easy to have a philosophy of “the law is the law”, but what is the best way to practice it in reality?

    There are a couple of realities that have largely gone unmentioned through this whole debate. The first is that many legal citizens have family that is here illegally. The second is that for a citizen to legally immigrate here from Mexico, they first need permission from the Mexican Govt. I don’t believe the Mexican government is all too free and easy in letting its citizens come over the border to the US. (My statement is based on highly limited experience, yet experience the same…if others are more knowledgeable, feel free to correct me.) It is much “easier” for a mexican to cross into America illegally than legally. I can’t blame them for doing it illegally.

    The point that we can see is that this is perhaps a much more complicated issue than it might first appear.

    Conservatives are for the law. And at the same time, Conservatives are, in general, religious and believe in the statement “Love your neighbor.” How can we reconcile the two on this issue? How can we uphold the law and seek the good of the illegal?

    The core issue is how to encourage those who are here without legal residency or citizenship to become legal residents and/or citizens.

    • http://www.redstate.com/thesophist TheSophist

      I don’t think it’s that hard. Writ large, the position needs to be “Justice, tempered with mercy”.

      We need to insist that our laws be enforced, that our borders be secured. We need to insist that programs like e-Verify be implemented. That sanctuary cities be eliminated. So a firm, tough enforcement-first regime is what we need to insist on.

      But at the same time, I think by taking the position that we want LEGAL immigration, that we want to encourage precisely the kind of family that would take the hardship of immigration to provide a better future for their children, we do not alienate legal immigrants and their friends and supporters.

      It’s a pragmatic, altogether American approach to rules. Yes, speeding is a crime, but there isn’t a cop who would ticket the expectant father rushing to the hospital with his pregnant wife. That isn’t “amnesty” or “ignoring the law”; it’s just common sense that allows the law to function as justice rather than tyrannical rule-following.

    • westcoastpatriette

      golden rule so many conservatives try to honor with seeking the good of the illegal, this is how I look at the bigger picture.

      The golden rule is not a one sided rule. Let’s take a look at it in its entirety, “You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself.” Notice the admonition does not say “love your neighbor instead of yourself” but “love your neighbor as yourself.” As I see it, illegal aliens and their defenders, enablers and supporters are expecting and even demanding that we love them instead of ourselves. They demonstrate this by ignoring our laws, selfishly ignoring the damage they inflict on our culture day in and day out and, generally speaking, refusing to honor and respect the system we have in place for allowing our neighbors into our home so to speak.

      Allowing our neighbor to disrespect us, abuse the system we have in place for immigrants to come here and expecting the taxpayers to foot the bill for the various social problems caused by their disrespect is not “loving thy neighbor.”

      So once, again, I remind conservatives to turn this issue around to gain a proper perspective. Are illegal aliens showing love for us? How would other nations–particularly Mexico–deal with massive amounts of people flooding their land illegally? Just more food for thought as we grapple with this humungous problem and our consciences as well.

  • drivlikejehu

    There are so many problems with this diary that it’s difficult to know where to begin. But here are some of the big ones:

    1) From a purely political point of view, the reality is unambiguous: voters want the borders secured and oppose amnesty. Even Hispanics support border security in overwhelming numbers and are divided on amnesty.

    Illegal immigration has hurt the GOP though because those immigrants are overwhelmingly of low socioeconomic status, and thus they benefit disproportionately from social spending. Allowing them in was a major blow against the fiscal situation of the US.

    2) There are hundreds of millions of hardworking people around the world who would like to live in the US. It is not possible for them all to enter, nor is it desirable. American citizens do not deserve to have their communities flooded with more new arrivals than our infrastructure can handle, or that our society can assimilate.

    The US already admits massive numbers of legal immigrants from all over the world. Why do Mexicans deserve special treatment just because they can walk across the undefended border?

    3) How is it vilifying someone to deny them a subsidy? Here’s what I don’t understand- if Perry and the OP here have the best argument, why are they calling their opponents racist? Why are they conflating legal immigration with illegal even though the issues are totally separate, even diametrically opposed?

    The reason is obvious- Perry doesn’t want to debate on immigration issues. He wants to vilify his opponents instead. That’s the only type of vilification that’s going on here with respect to the immigration debate.

    College tuition should be subsidized, if at all, for legal residents of a state. It’s a very simple premise which involves no attack on anyone because of their age, race, or anything else. Sure, it would be great if everything in the world was free and we could all just live happily ever after. I wish tens of millions of people weren’t starving or living in a war zone or oppressed by their government. Sadly, they are. And the reality is that taxpayers in this country are already being bled dry, and they shouldn’t have to pay so that illegal immigrants get a cheaper college education.

    • http://www.redstate.com/thesophist TheSophist

      1) From a purely political point of view, the reality is unambiguous: voters want the borders secured and oppose amnesty. Even Hispanics support border security in overwhelming numbers and are divided on amnesty.

      Illegal immigration has hurt the GOP though because those immigrants are overwhelmingly of low socioeconomic status, and thus they benefit disproportionately from social spending. Allowing them in was a major blow against the fiscal situation of the US.

      There is nothing in this diary that suggests we relax border security, or that we don’t enforce our laws. In fact, I think I’m pretty clear that I want enforcement first, the Feds doing their goddamn jobs in securing our borders, and so on. (Plus, there’s nothing to suggest Perry doesn’t want the borders secured.)

      But since you’re addressing the purely political… do you really think it’s a political winner to say to the average voter — especially in the General — that the GOP is opposed to kids brought here by their parents, who grew up here, who graduated from a Texas high school, who just wants to go to college having the same in-state rate that every other Texas high school graduate would get?

      I don’t think that’s a winner. Obviously, we may differ there.

      2) There are hundreds of millions of hardworking people around the world who would like to live in the US. It is not possible for them all to enter, nor is it desirable. American citizens do not deserve to have their communities flooded with more new arrivals than our infrastructure can handle, or that our society can assimilate.

      And I’ve said we should have a conversation about what the appropriate limits, numbers, and kinds of immigrants we want are. And that we should have that conversation after — and only after — we have secured our borders, and have enforcement in place.

      I don’t see how that has any impact on THIS issue, and on the general philosophy of the GOP and the conservative movement on how we should approach the problem of illegal immigration. But the fact that you immediately took this discussion to legal immigration suggests that the problem for you isn’t so much the illegal part as it is the immigrant part.

      And that’s a political loser for sure. That is precisely what I am urging all of us to avoid.

      Your line about “Mexicans” is simply incorrect; as I read the Texas law, it applies to all illegals, not just Mexicans. Since the Houston area has a very large Asian immigrant community, I imagine there are more than a few non-Mexican illegals whose kids would like to go to Texas A&M. This isn’t a race/ethnicity thing.

      3) How is it vilifying someone to deny them a subsidy? Here?s what I don?t understand- if Perry and the OP here have the best argument, why are they calling their opponents racist? Why are they conflating legal immigration with illegal even though the issues are totally separate, even diametrically opposed?

      As I’ve said, I was very disappointed in Perry’s performance. I don’t think the “heartless” line was practiced, and he probably shouldn’t have said it. I think his comment about last names was a bad mis-step. I hope he gets his ship in order and soon.

      But I’m not the one conflating legal with illegal immigration. Your second point above does.

      As for “college tuition subsidies”, well, there are plenty of posts on how offering an in-state rate isn’t quite the same thing, including on the front-page of Redstate, so I’ll just direct your attention that-a-way.

      As for the “taxpayers of this country are being bled dry” bit… in THIS case, the taxpayers of TEXAS have volunteered through their duly elected legislators to allow the children of illegals to get in-state rates with a bunch of conditions attached. They offer the same thing to the kid from Boston whose parents have contributed precisely ZERO to the funding base of the Univ. of Texas system, if said kid would reside in Texas for 11 months.

      I see no reasonable argument that the people of Texas somehow owe more to the Boston kid whose first exposure to Texas was on Freshman Orientation Day than they do to the kid who spent his life in Texas.

      None of this, IMHO, softens the stance on enforcement; none of this softens the demand for border security; none of this suggests any give on our sovereignty as a nation.

      And I’ve already conceded that those who want to just label that kid a lawbreakin’ illegal are legally correct. There’s no doubt about it.

      I just think that position is a total loser in the general election, and if that ends up being the GOP position — that as comes to illegal immigration, there is no mercy, no discretion, no difference between the college applicant and the gangbanger murderer — we’re going to lose not just this election, but every election for the foreseeable future.

      • Scope

        you for your incredible patience and reasonable and rational approach to an issue that is most definately a complicated one, unless you live in a world of black and white, perhaps just on the immigration issue.

        I’ve written before that the rhetoric started being ramped up many years ago, most likely by those in the Tom Tancredo camp. During the McCain/Kennedy battle, the voices became shill, and most never even thought about what they were shilling about, myself included. Most just joined in with the mantras, which mostly sounded like Mexicans bad people. Yes, there are people here illegally of all ethnicities, including many that were recruited by radical islamist factions already inside the country. No one even considers those, who surely have as bad intentions as those from the drug cartels and human traffickers. There really are illegals, and then there are illegals.

        It has been in clear evidence here with some posters that they have no clue that the Republicans will not win elections with their ramped up, stoned out, hateful words and views. That is exactly why the immigrants, most particularly of hispanic descent, keep voting for the Democrats, even though the Democrats only make their lives more miserable, along with ours.

        • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

          Exactly what message should Republicans change?

          “We want to give you benefits, too?”

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            and no all minorities on benefits do NOT tilt toward democrats…

            what actually happens is they fill out forms thinking they’re going to get some benefit… then a young college liberal takes their personal information and registers them to vote, and then OfA hires actors to show up and vote in their place…. ok… maybe that was too cynical…

            I’m sorry but Scope has laid out a well thought out comment, and it seems that you are exemplifying exactly what Scope is talking about…

          • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

            Do Republicans need to be the party of more goodies?

            Nothign well thought out about agreeing with the left wing meme that those who oppose benefits for illegals and their children hate brown skinned people or people whose names don’t sound like mine.

            And how do you know what color my skin is or what my name sounds like?

          • Scope

            to put in all your neighbors yards? The day is young, you could get in at least a few more blocks before nightfall.

          • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

            Perry’s are a little tougher to out, since his backers would have us think this is a two man race, 13 months out, and if we don’t accept Perry’s flavor of conservatism then we must support Romney’s.

            Speaking of not living in a binary world…

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            nt

          • Scope

            I don’t believe in punching down.

        • defenseconservative

          It’s time for Republicans to stop pandering to minorities and the La Raza crowd. We need tough immigration policies.

      • drivlikejehu

        Obviously there are ideological differences at work here, but on the political issue I think you are clearly wrong. For instance, there is a strong effort to bring a ballot measure in Maryland to rescind their in-state tuition policy, and even in that liberal state it is widely believed that in-state tuition cannot survive a referendum (liberals and their allies are trying to keep it off the ballot).

        It passed the Texas legislature overwhelmingly because political elites have different views on many issues than ordinary citizens.

        Every independent poll ever taken shows overwhelming support for a tough stance on illegal immigration.Republicans, Independents, and even many Democrats oppose benefits for illegals. It is ludicrous to suggest that Republicans need to run left on the issue… it’s actually a subject which allows the GOP to show blue collar Democrats how Democrats don’t represent their best interests.

        So far as the difference between an American from Boston vs. an illegal from Mexico or wherever- well, it is pretty obvious. When a Boston resident moves to Texas, after the requisite period he becomes a Texas resident. When an illegal immigrant enters Texas, by definition he cannot be a legal resident. Whether that matters depends, I suppose, on whether the rule of law matters. It does to me and so the distinction seems quite reasonable.

        • http://www.redstate.com/thesophist TheSophist

          disagree with the action of their legislators, then they will swap out those legislators. To some extent, I don’t entirely buy the “political elite” argument at local and state levels. I do buy it at the Federal level, because of the distance between the ruled and the rulers. Plus, I know quite a few of the NY-DC elite crowd from my background, and I definitely don’t think those people would have a clue what to make of the average American citizen.

          I don’t think that’s really the case with state legislators. But that’s for another day.

          The real question is whether a truly hardline stance on immigration is a political winner or a political loser. I believe it is the latter; you believe the former. Polls are useful things, but pernicious; depends on the phrasing, depends on who is being polled, etc. etc.

          But having lived for a time in Maryland, I do think there are real differences culturally. It’s just impossible to compare a state like MD with a state like TX. The latter has literally a hundred years of history of Mexicans and Americans going back and forth, trading, inter-marrying, working together, etc. etc. I don’t believe I’ve ever met a third generation Latino in Maryland. They abound in Texas.

          I suppose neither one of us really knows how the wider American electorate would perceive a candidate/party that is truly hardline on the illegal immigration issue, until we see one in an actual election.

          My position is that this issue is far more complicated and far more complex than some make it out to be, and that it goes right to the heart of the American character that is always pulled between the poles of Responsibility on the one hand and Charity on the other hand.

          I just think we as a party and as a movement can afford a little mercy, if you will, even while we insist on the rule of law. It just makes no sense to me that anyone who isn’t an illegal-immigration activist would think that Perry or the GOP is “weak on immigration” simply because we make a tiny little exception for kids wanting to go to college.

          Now, should we perhaps clarify that “exception” with various procedures and rules to ensure that we’re not creating a backdoor amnesty program for all and sundry? Sure. Could we demand various things from the kid and his family to qualify? I’d be open to all of those discussions.

          But as long as we approach this as a party with the overall philosophy of, “We love immigrants, but hate lawbreakers” then I think we can thread the needle.

          • drivlikejehu

            Again, the problem with Perry is that his views on immigration go far beyond in-state tuition. And it makes sense- what good is a college degree if you can’t get a job because of e-verify?

            On some issues there is ambiguity, on others there isn’t. There is no question Americans support a border fence in overwhelming numbers. There is zero downside for a candidate to support one, only upside. Even illegal immigrants don’t want Mexico’s drug war expanding further into the US.

            Perry is against the fence, he is against e-verify, he has no ideas other than hollow promises to add a few border agents, who still would be far too few in number to control the border. He simply does not want to secure the border, end of story.

            We all know why. Perry is beholden to business interests in Texas that want lots of cheap labor. If you seriously want to discuss this issue, then forget Perry and argue it on your own terms. Perry’s arrogant and angry approach on the issue just defies belief and is going to cost him the nomination.

  • Sam Gamgee

    I personally would not vote for a “Dream Act” either for my state or for the United States, but it does seem clear that not all immigrants (or even all illegal immigrants) should be lumped together. Justice, tempered with both wisdom and mercy is called for.

  • rkcon

    When he accused people that disagree with him of being heartless. Very Obama-esque. But hey, he went with his guts! That’s what Perry defenders want; and, for that matter, what he has always done in the other debates during his political career. However what worked in Texas doesn’t work at this level any more.

    (Plus, invoking the “it?s a Texas issue, dammit” line is quite bizarre. In that case no governor would ever need to defend his record. Government subsidies are wrong and politicians who promote them should be looked with suspicion).

    • gekster

      what subsidy do they get.

      They have to pay thier own way. No government money.

      • rkcon

        The Texas A&M University System is highly subsidized by the tax payer. If it wasn’t for that, tuitions would be higher. I have no idea how there are people who can’t understand this. It just boggles my mind.

        • gekster

          So where does the state get the taxes from.

          • bloggb

            This ‘Subsidy’ bit from Romney and others is a load of BS when you consider that the entire tax base in Texas comes from property and sales taxes… which everyone has to pay, illegal or not!

  • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Loren Heal

    In as much as providing state benefits (of any kind, not just tuition breaks) over and above what is federally mandated tends to draw people from across the border.

    • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

      Especially if you aspire to a national office.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    explain Lloyd Bentsen, John Connolly and George W.

    In the metaphorical sense, they sure all came over on the Mayflower!

  • mearsc

    While I do not agree with the approach Texas has taken, Wouldn’t a better response by Gov. Perry go something like this: “Unfortunately the federal government has let the problem on the border get to this point. The result is that states have to make their own policy to deal with people that shouldn’t be there in the first place. But, since they are here, and the federal government does not appear to want to deal with them, Texas took the approach we did. We decided that when it came to education, we would look at all residents the same. If the federal government were to change its approach to illegal immigration, the state of Texas would change its approach accordingly.”

  • radicalrighty

    But you put it morre eloquently, TheSophist.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    These people have been living in Texas, so they’re paying taxes. They live in a house, so directly or indirectly, they’re paying property taxes. They’re buying things, so they’re paying sales tax. They buy petroleum products, so the taxes on oil companies is indirectly paid by them as well.

    Wouldn’t you find it immoral to tax someone and then deny them the benefits of that tax like everyone else? To not allow them in-state tuition would be immoral.

    I know, I know, they’re here illegally. The fact is, for decades our government has decided not to enforce those laws. An unenforced law is no law at all, so to me, that argument doesn’t hold.

    • rkcon

      The logical corollary of that line of reasoning (they pay taxes) is that they should be made citizens. No taxation without representation. If it’s immoral to deny them the access to one public good, it’s immoral to deny them any public good at all.

      Actually I don’t care a big deal about this (if Perry was a conservative he would have halted subsidies for higher education.. all the rest is small potatoes), but the arguments being used to defend him are awful.

      • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

        We already know this.

        I’m not actually defending Perry. I don’t currently have a horse in this race. This is my position on this issue regardless of who the candidate might be. I cannot agree with those that are perfectly willing to create a permanent slave class in the U.S.

        • rkcon

          I don’t agree with those who are willing to create a permanent slave class in the US either. Actually I wouldn’t have a problem with these students having a path to citizenship and their parents a path to legal residence without possibility of citizenship. It’s the “they pay taxes so they can’t discriminated” argument that I find weak.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            I said they vote. Just like they live there, work there, and go to school there.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            I never used the word “discriminated” either. I said it was immoral to collect taxes from them and then bar them from the benefits of those tax payments.

    • JSobieski

      nt

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

        nt

  • izoneguy

    If you have not noticed – there is a civil war going on in Mexico.
    30,000 dead since 2005.

    When Rick Perry asked Santorium if he had been down to the border,
    this is what he was talking about.

    So, yes I would be getting the hell out of Mexico for the safety
    of the US, wouldn’t you?

    Here is a link for the not faint of heart. This is NSFW.
    It is a drug gang using a chainsaw to behead someone.
    http://www.mundonarco.com/2011/09/video-en-donde-decapitan-con-una-sierra.html

    • Scope

      Sorry, don’t need to watch your video, I saw a few of those barbarian videos a few months ago and had nightmares for days.

      The US has sent billions and billions of dollars to Mexico over the years, and it never accomplishes the first good thing. During the Obama/Calderone time periods, Mexico has deteriorated into near collapse from the drug cartels, with many reports now of the tourist traps not even being safe. Also look at the recent reports of the mass graves being found in Mexico. And of course we have the fast and furious guns going to Mexico in order to kill Mexican citizens. Yup, our dollars are just propping up what can clearly be termed Mexican terrorists.

      I have long thought that we could probably do much more for Mexico in sending in our military, in large enough numbers in order to fight the Mexican drug lord terrorists, and have wondered why we haven’t done that even though we’ve fought terrorists that are no where near our borders. If the country was capable of being cleaned up and made much more safe for it’s citizens and businesses, we wouldn’t be fighting the thousands spilling across the borders, and escaping into our country.

      • izoneguy

        On the Border and the Texas DREAM Act

        There aren?t any perfect answers to the border but there is an obvious answer: Enforce the entire border as a national security priority. The next president must lead and secure the border. I trust that Gov. Perry would do that, as would most of the GOP candidates for the presidency. The next president must not sue states that attempt enforcement, as President Obama is doing, but must work with them. Congress must come down on sanctuary cities as violators of federal law, using the might of the federal purse to force the sanctuary cities? hands, and they must come down on the employer side of the problem as well. Anything less will not be serious, and will likely make all of the problems and expenses associated with illegal immigration worse.
        Do all of that, and states like Texas will not have to deal with DREAM Acts at all.

        • izoneguy

          Its war and the state can not hold the line much longer

          “I must emphasize again, this is not criminal activity … this is a war,? said General Scales.

          According to their research, drug cartels and narco gangs are trying to expand into Texas. The plan is to take over every county along the border. The move, reportedly, is designed to create safe zones for enhancing drug smuggling and human trafficking operations.

          “To use Texas as a launch point into the heartland of America,? said Scales.

          And who helped fuel this war? Obama & Holder – that’s who!

          • izoneguy
          • westcoastpatriette

            I don’t buy the other reason that I’ve heard–that they were trying to create the grounds to restrict gun sales. I think it was something much more sinister such as arming the cartels to assist in our downfall.

          • izoneguy

            But when Obama & Holder realized that they could arm Mexican cartels under the ruse of “walking guns” they said they were going to track……
            well the pandoras box is open.

            Will Issa have the guts to keep digging?

          • gekster

            Sell the guns, show that they came from the US, then impose restrictions on US gun sales.

            Problem was, when the agent got killed, one man had the guts to blow the whistle.