The Perry Problem
Last week was a tough week for Texas Governor Rick Perry, who had surged to the front of the GOP presidential line when he announced his bid on August 13. His Orlando debate performance was panned by critics, making it the third straight debate where Perry underwhelmed on a national stage. In that Orlando debate’s aftermath, Perry’s “all-in” strategy at the Presidency 5 straw poll failed. Observers were stunned when Herman Cain, heretofore considered a second-tier candidate, instead walked off with the Florida prize, beating Perry by a better than 2 to 1 margin.
But there was another damning piece on Perry last week which has mostly escaped notice. While it’s beyond question that Rick Perry’s immigration stance wouldn’t win him any friends at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group which favors stricter limits on who and how many are allowed into the country, the numbers they ran state a case that most of the thousands of jobs created in Texas in spite of the national recession are going to the immigrant population (legal and illegal) rather than native-born Americans.
The CIS study had a relatively simple methodology: compare the commonly available employment numbers in the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey at two points in time (2007 and 2011) based on whether respondents are working and whether they are newly arrived in the country or not. It’s also interesting to note the CIS survey only asked about immigrants arriving in 2007 or later, a time period where the much-criticized Texas policy of in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants had been in place for several years.
Their probe found that while the unemployment rate in Texas for native workers had doubled from 4.0% to 8.1% over the four-year study period, the total number of immigrants working in the state had jumped by nearly 7 percent. They concluded that over 80 percent of the new jobs taken in Texas had gone to newly-arrived immigrant workers, whether legal or illegal. Using accepted methodology, they presumed about 40% of the new jobs had been taken by illegal immigrants.
One can argue with the process the CIS used to arrive at their conclusions, and I had a hard time working through their fuzzy math, too. Yet the same figures the CIS used yield interesting results for other states in the region. In Oklahoma, where the unemployment rate among native-born workers only increased from 4.7 percent to 5.5 percent, the number of immigrants working jumped by almost 26 percent – yet the state adopted a get-tough policy on illegal immigration in late 2007, shortly after the study’s time period began.
The ardent defenders of illegals, the Perry campaign, have come out with some outlandish rebuttal to the CIS report.
Perry insists we need to enforce the borders with boots on the ground, but how is that new? With 18,000 cartel members presently active in Texas right this minute, when do we pull up the Welcome mat?
Texas has become the northern annex of Mexico. I bet illegals are operating the Alamo.
Quite pounding rainbows up my tailpipe and calling it sunshine. ¿Comprendéis
The foundation for today’s illegal immigration was laid in the 80′s with the first amnesty. Before the first amnesty for illegals happened immigration raids were an everyday event and people, illegals, and employers, dealt with it. The raids were an attempt to stem the tide or invasion. (choose your own term)
The first amnesty gave a firm and fairly safe anchorage to today’s illegals.
Nowadays, in border states, hispanics with Latin-American connections are significant voting blocs. It may sound good in some states to say “build a fence, build a ‘Great Wall of Mexico’, round up all illegals and send them all back to whence they came”, but in Texas the subject must be approached with more tact. So it is that what worked for Perry in Texas isn’t working so well elsewhere. Perry’s strategy should be to throw the question back to his opponents and then explain why their answers won’t work.
On the question of a border fence Perry might want to look at Israel’s experience.
Here’s the background. The left in Israel believes that we should get out of Judea and Samaria, essentially returning to the 1948 ceasefire lines otherwise known as the “1967 borders.” (Not entirely among the mainstream left who are aware of such things as the need for a security presence in the Jordan Valley.) Meanwhile Barak, the left leader then tried to give away the store to Arafat, but the PLO leader rejected the offer and launched a horrendous reign of terror.
As the bombs kept blowing up innocent citizens, the left lost its support among the majority for its ideas. Not to worry, they had a new idea. Build a fence to separate Israel “proper” so-called from Judea and Samaria. This was presented as solving the security problems created by the terrorist wave but the motivation was really the old let’s get out of there repackaged.
The reaction of the right was to reject the idea out of hand. Sharon, the leader of the right and like Barak formerly a career soldier, said from a security point of view the fence would do nothing, you just needed boots on the ground well managed. The right suspected this was just another attempt by the left to separate Israel from what it regards as our ancestral land. Besides they were talking a lot of dough and times were tough.
A funny thing happened on the way to the forum. The citizenship who were giving the left single digit favorable ratings because of the terrorist wave swung entirely over to their idea of a fence. Sharon setting ideology and economic considerations aside decided to give the people what they wanted. The fence went ahead.
It was a resounding success. That alone did not stop the terrorist wave, you still had to have extremely good intelligence and of course boots on the ground, but it made access to Israel much harder, especially for vehicles carrying bombs and terrorists. Most of the sporadic attacks since then have come from terrorists entering from unfenced areas. A fence is now being built on the Egyptian border.
America has a much much longer border and the infiltrators in the main aren’t coming to score immediate kills. But the principle is the same. A fence based on the Israeli experience does work.
Israel also uses airport profiling. But, I digress… Perry has said he is in favor of strategic fencing in urban locations. But, please don’t compare a few miles in Israel with hundreds of miles in Texas.
We are fearful here in Texas of the drug cartels who are becoming cash rich and are beginning the processes of setting up their operations along our border in OUR Texas counties. We are going to need an army eventually to resolve this problem. Obama doesn’t get it. We need “boots on the ground”. We need them now!
If Perry wins the Republican nomination, I’m not holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, and thereby continuing to allow the left to hijack the Republican Party. Instead, I’m staying home and not voting in protest. Indeed, it’s what I did in 2008 as well when Juan McPain was the Republican nominee.
Well thank you so much for your protest. It sure helped a lot. NOT!
Governor/Candidate Perry has advised – “I will assure you one thing, if I’m the president of the United States, THE BORDER WILL BE SECURE.” -” Perry has said that he supports putting “boots on the ground” and using “aviation assets” (i.e. aerial drones) to secure the border. He has also supported fencing in strategic areas and electronic surveillance.
It should be noted “sea to sea” fencing is fraught with problems. Not the least of the problems are the well documented opportunities to get over the fence with ladders and under the fence with tunnels. When “fencing” was being actively pursued, there were issues with terrain … deep canyons and mountainous areas. There were refusals of rights to construct … Landowners who did not want their property breached with fencing. This leads to questions of eminent domain and litigation with attendant delays. Texas, itself, presents issues with fencing IN the Rio Grande and formidable canyons.
As Governor, Governor Perry has repeatedly requested the Federal Government provide additional border support. He has authorized millions in State moneys to supplement federal border control, as it exists.
As for the “Texas Dream Act” issue. We should note there are currently 11 additional states with “Dream Act” legislation in place (including Maryland where it was foist on the citizenry and currently under challenge). There are reportedly 11 additional states with “Dream Act” legislation being considered. Texas is by no means the only state with this type of opportunity. Many States, including Maryland, also provide sanctuary “non-enforcement” opportunities “undocumented aliens.”
The issues extend far beyond Governor Perry and Texas. They will need to be addressed on a national and/or/with State’s Rights considerations.
Anyone opposed to a fence is for open borders, because a fence is the only solution that will put a major dent in the numbers crossing. All the prolems mentioned can be overcome a lot more cheaply than supporting millions of illegals.
Your view is illogical. You claim that IF you reject a fence, THEN you support illegals. Nonsense.
First, it’s been repeatedly shown that fences are inadequate; they can be breached above and below their perimeters.
Second, in many parts of the US border, a fence is physically untenable. This includes much of Texas, where the border is primarily a massive river, the Rio Grande..and canyons. A wall is not feasible in either area.
What is needed, in addition to fences-where-feasible, are extensive ground forces and air surveillance on both sides of the border. AND, AND, a federal govt committee to its constitutional obligations to secure the border and reject illegal immigration.
At the moment, we have a federal govt that refuses to secure the border and refuses to apprehend and deport illegals. Got that?
And a Mexican govt that not only doesn’t lift a finger to prevent this mass exo-migration, but actively encourages it? How? Because Mexiso does not provide an educational and economic infrastructure for its poorest citizens. To survive, they flee to the US, where they can get education and jobs..and send billions back each year to support their relatives..for their own Mexican govt ignores this segment of the Mexican population. And does Obama order the Mexican govt to look after its own citizens and stop unloading them on the US? Nope.
That leaves them all here in the various States. And the States are not only forbidden by law to stop them coming in but also forbidden to apprehend and deport them. Got that?
Oh- and ordered by law to educate them from K-12.
And ordered by law to look after them in hospitals.
So- what’s your solution?
I had high hopes for this guy. Ann Coulter called it a month or so ago. He will not measure up. Anything is better than the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania but it really is starting to look like Perry is just Bush part II.
Why is it so hard for people in power to understand the damage done by the recolonization of the Southwest by Mexico? There is a lot of talk about Mexicans being the fastest growing voting bloc etc… Surely this is based on their fertility rates etc… AND THESE ARE CHILDREN OF THE CURRENT WAGE BUSTING, BENEFIT DRAWING, TAX EVADING, SOCIAL SERVICE STRAINING ILLEGALS that are here. It seems that if they are illegal the only way they can become a real voting bloc is for Republicans to help them achieve that. As pure political strategy isn’t it better to hinder, oppose, etc… all the way and prevent this from happening? Thinking in purely partisan terms – What would Willie Brown or George Mitchell do?
This kind of soft multiculturalism ( “Its not the people, its the system”.) is why the Bushes sucked as Presidents. Do we really want other states to be like California. Texas is on the slow(er) path to the same future.
“In his decision to adopt the Texas in-state tuition policy back in 2001, Rick Perry weighed the costs of doing nothing and perhaps dooming these children to menial employment or crime against rewarding the illegality of the parents who crossed the border without the proper paperwork.”
I’m assuming this is Mr. Swartz’s synopsis of what Perry was thinking when he enacted the Texas policy. Two problems; One, The assumption that not going to college leads to a live of menial employment or crime in one that would be disputed by the majority of Americans who don’t go to college, and perhaps the large number of college graduates who don’t work in the field for which they train…..and Two, it wasn’t just parents who illegally crossed the border, in order to qualify for in-state tuition for illegal aliens, one must be an illegal alien. Children born to illegal aliens, on U.S. soil are (until the our political class decides to properly apply the 14th Amendment) U.S. citizens who don’t qualify for this program. Only children who illegally crossed the border with their parents would qualify.
Perry himself said in one debate that he signed the DREAM Act so immigrants would become “contributing members of our society, rather than be on the dole.” I added the crime part since idle youths have a tendency to turn to criminal acts out of sheer boredom.
It’s not to say that a college education is the only key to success, since it isn’t. (I’m one of those who indeed toils in a field unrelated to my college degree.) But Perry was the one who presented the choice I alluded to.
You are correct that a proper application of the Fourteenth Amendment is needed here, but in any case a parent who committed the illegal act of an unauthorized border crossing is being rewarded (assuming they’re paying for the child’s education) whereas a child born of immigrant parents who played by the same rules but happens to live just across the state line would not benefit. That could be important if they want to go into certain fields where only a few schools are accredited to teach the subject or attract the best and brightest in that area of study.
The ignorance of some about the problem of illegals in this country is astonishing. This mess has been created by the federal govt’s abdication of its responsibilities and fobbing off the resultant enormous problems to the states..and preventing those states from dealing with them!!
Perry is NOT advocating an open border, he is not pro-illegals. He has specifically rejected both. But, he’s the governor of a state and if you would just THINK about realities…you have to understand the problems the states have with dealing with illegals.
1)First, the border. That is the responsibility of the federal govt, and, under past federal govts and certainly under Obama, it refuses to stop illegals coming in and refuses to deport them. And under Obama, if a state tries to stop them – the federal govt sues! Obama is suing Arizona for its attempt to apprehend illegals and hand them over to the federals!!Therefore, what is a state to do – realistically?
2) A fence is constructive in some terrain in other states but not in Texas, where most of the border is the Rio Grande river and other parts are canyons. So, the realistic solution is, as Perry said – ‘boots on the ground’, satellite surveillance etc. But the federal govt won’t provide this or provide the funds for it. OK? Perry has increased his own budget for this but it’s not enough..and kindly try to remember, it’s the responsibility of the federal govt, and it won’t accept the states ‘meddling’ in this area.
Therefore – Texas has a huge illegal population. Remember, it can’t deport them, and it, itself, doesn’t have the funds or legal authority to keep them out.
3) Therefore, Texas had to make some hard choices. It can’t deport the students, who were brought here by their parents. They are already in Texas schools.
In 1975, Texas passed a law REFUSING to educate the children of aliens with state tax dollars. TEXAS TRIED TO REFUSE!!
Then, began the many court cases, and finally, the US Supreme Court, using the 14th amendment, in 1982 required that public schools educate any and all, regardless of citizenship,and declared that prohibiting state funds being used to educate ‘illegals’ was unconstitutional.
So, both in pre-college and college situations, these decisions are being made, not by one person (eg, the Governor) but by the courts and the legislatures.
4) The Texas higher education act deals with a real problem. The state must legally, I repeat, MUST LEGALLY, educate them until high school graduation and then, it must prevent the emergence of an economic underclass, proscribed from higher education and thus, participation in a robust economy and thus, confined to a criminal economy. How does it do this?
Remember, it can’t deport these students. And, it absolutely must prevent an economic and educational underclass. So, it must allow education and a path to citizenship. So, the Texas legislature in 2001 passed its in-state law, passed by all but 4 members of the Texas legislature – and thus, immune to any gubnatorial veto. THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE PASSED THIS BY A MAJORITY!!!
“To qualify, the student must have lived in the state for at least three years before graduating from a Texas high school or receiving a high school equivalency diploma in Texas. The student also must have lived for at least part of that time with a parent or legal guardian and could not have an established residence outside of Texas. In addition, such students were required to sign an affidavit stating that they would apply for permanent residency as soon as they are eligible to do so.”
5) That is, this applicant must pay tuition; the same rate as other in-state students…and..apply for permanent residency. That is vital: apply for permanent residency.
6) This seems to me to be a realistic three- point approach to a real problem. No ideological approach can deal with this situation – a situation where: illegals exist, the federal govt will neither prevent their entrance nor deport them…and therefore, what are you to do????
“Several states — Texas, California, New York, Utah, Illinois, Washington, Nebraska, New Mexico, Maryland (community colleges), Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Kansas — have passed state laws providing in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens who have attended high school in the state for three or more years. Similar legislation is pending in Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. (Connecticut also passed such a law, but the governor vetoed it.) The Nevada system of higher education does not consider immigration status for in-state tuition, but does require it for a state-sponsored scholarship.”
So, TEXAS IS NOT ALONE in this strategy for dealing with them.
7) Texas does not have income taxes, so the state support of these educational institutions comes from the various other taxes, such as property taxes (which would be part of the rent), sales taxes etc.
I think that realism trumps ideology any day, anywhere. We already have an ideologue in the White House and the results are disastrous; we need realists to face the real world.
Again – simplistic opinions that say ‘keep all illegals out’ doesn’t deal with the realities when three branches of government don’t work together. The federal govt, which has the SOLE LEGAL responsibility for illegals won’t lift a finger. The Courts rule that the states MUST EDUCATE them. The States have no powers to stop them or deport them. THINK!!! How does a state deal with such a mess? Realistically. That’s how. And Perry has done just that..
Nice elaboration, ETAB, of a complex, volatile issue.
I particularly appreciated the additional context you provided and the reminder that Texas is one of several states who’ve adopted similar strategies in an effort to manage a difficult situation.
Many people, with their automatic robotic response to the problem of illegals ignore the terrible problems resulting from the division of legal responsibilities. It’s a morass and the problems fall totally, to the States.
1) First, the border. That is the responsibility of the federal govt, and, under previous regimes and definitely under Obama, it refuses to stop illegals coming in and refuses to deport them. Therefore, what is a state to do – realistically? [Remember, Arizona tried to apprehend illegals in criminal acts..and the Obama federal govt is suing them for this!!]
2) A fence is constructive in some terrain in other states but not in Texas, where most of the border is the Rio Grande river and other parts are canyons. So, the realistic solution is, as Perry said – ‘boots on the ground’, satellite surveillance etc. But the federal govt won’t provide this or provide the funds for it. OK?
Therefore – Texas has a huge illegal population. Remember, it can’t deport them, and it, itself, doesn’t have the funds or legal authority to keep them out. Robotic responses that ‘Perry allows them in’ are ignorant.
3) Therefore, Texas had to make some hard choices. It can’t deport the students, who were brought here by their parents. They are already in Texas schools. It tried to refuse to educate them…but…
In 1975, Texas passed a law REFUSING to educate the children of aliens with state tax dollars. Then, began the many court cases, and finally, the US Supreme Court, using the 14th amendment, in 1982 required that public schools educate any and all, regardless of citizenship,and declared that prohibiting state funds being used to educate ‘illegals’ was unconstitutional.
So, both in pre-college and college situations, these decisions are being made, not by one person (eg, the Governor) or by the States but by the state and FEDERAL courts and the legislatures.
3) The Texas higher education act deals with a real problem..one fobbed off to the States by the Federal Govt and Courts.
The state must legally educate them until high school graduation and then, it must prevent the emergence of an economic underclass [remember, they won't leave and the State can't deport them]…, proscribed from higher education and thus, participation in a robust economy and thus, confined to a criminal economy. How does it do this?
Again, it can’t deport these students. And, it absolutely must prevent an economic and educational underclass. So, it must allow education and a path to citizenship. So, the Texas legislature in 2001 passed its in-state law, passed by all but 4 members of the Texas legislature – and thus, immune to any gubnatorial veto. Got that? A MAJORITY STATE LEGISLATURE.
“To qualify, the student must have lived in the state for at least three years before graduating from a Texas high school or receiving a high school equivalency diploma in Texas. The student also must have lived for at least part of that time with a parent or legal guardian and could not have an established residence outside of Texas. In addition, such students were required to sign an affidavit stating that they would apply for permanent residency as soon as they are eligible to do so.”
That is, this applicant must pay tuition; the same rate as other in-state students…and..apply for permanent residency. That is vital: apply for permanent residency. APPLY for permanent residency…
4) This seems to me to be a realistic three- point approach to a real problem. No ideological approach can deal with this situation – a situation where: illegals exist, the federal govt will neither prevent their entrance nor deport them…and therefore, what are you to do????
“Several states — Texas, California, New York, Utah, Illinois, Washington, Nebraska, New Mexico, Maryland (community colleges), Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Kansas — have passed state laws providing in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens who have attended high school in the state for three or more years. Similar legislation is pending in Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. (Connecticut also passed such a law, but the governor vetoed it.) The Nevada system of higher education does not consider immigration status for in-state tuition, but does require it for a state-sponsored scholarship.”
So- it’s not just Texas; it’s other States…trying to deal with the mess that has been flung at them by a federal govt that refuses to act.
5) Finally – a knee-jerk response of ‘throw them out’ and ‘deport them all’ when observing Perry’s actions in the state totally ignores that States cannot legally do this..and MUST provide education for them and can’t allow an economic underclass to develop! THINK rather than provide a robotic response.
The problem with your “we need to educate them since they are here” argument is that they will remain an economic underclass since they can’t get good jobs despite their degree in Ethnic Studies because they are illegal. Only the lower tier of employers hires illegals.
I don’t think you are analyzing the situation very well.
1) The illegals are here, due to the refusal of the federal govt to both stop them coming in, and apprehend, and deport them when they are here.
2) The federal govt then sloughs the illegals off to the Care of The States. It is a federal LAW that they MUST be able to attend state schools from K-12. Got that? They are educated by the state. That’s the Supreme Court 1982 law.
And, of course, they also receive state medical care at all hospitals.
3) They are able to work here..otherwise, they wouldn’t come, and wouldn’t be sending billions back to support their relatives in Mexico…thus further relieving Mexico of any responsibility for its own citizens.
They work ‘under the table’ so to speak, as day laborers, as staff in small businesses, and of course, there’s a huge hispanic network of forged documents.
4)They are here; they are not being deported; they are NOT returning to their old homes in Mexico where the Mexican govt does not provide education or health care or an economic infrastructure.
5) But notice the problem. They are here, they are not being deported, and they are getting a K-12 education. They can continue to work, and even, set up their own businesses with this education, using forged documents that are readily provided within the hispanic network.
Some, a few, want to go on to college, and the requirements in all the states that provide in-state tuition rates, are that the applicant must have lived instate for at least 3 years, gone to school there, be living with a parent, and…be applying for permanent residency. This will make them ‘legal’.
6) Essentially, it’s a strategy developed by these states to deal with the enormous problem foisted on them by the federal govt.
ETAB – thank you.
The “open borders” policy is that of the Federal government, foisted on the states. This has been the case for many decades. In my opinion, a guest worker program would put an end to much of the nonsense.
Thanks. I think a guest worker program would solve only a minimal part of the problem. They want more than work; they want a future for their children.
I blame both the federal govt for utterly abandoning its duties and also, Mexico, which has abandoned its duty to educate and provide a jobs infrastructure for its most impoverished…so…they all flee to the US where their children can get an education and can find work..and they send billions back to Mexico to support their impoverished relatives who are ignored in Mexico.
And the whole mess is totally abandoned to the States, which are then, federally required !!!! to educate these children and provide hospital care etc for them! Incredible.
Here’s more on illegal immigration, a ruling on the attempt by the state of Alabama to control illegals in its state. Guess what – the ‘Obama administration’, i.e., the federal govt, was arguing AGAINST the State’s attempt to deal with illegals.
(Fox online news) “She [the judge] said federal law doesn’t prohibit checking students or suspects pulled over by police. She also refused to stop provisions that allow police to hold suspected illegal immigrants without bond; bar state courts from enforcing contracts involving illegal immigrants; make it a felony for an illegal immigrant to do business with the state; and make it a misdemeanor for an illegal resident not to have immigration papers.”
Do you recall, the Arizona law, which wanted its State police to check on the immigration status of someone pulled over for some problem? Obama has sued Arizona, and lied/misinformed the general public by stating, publicly, that Arizona was discriminating against hispanics, and would have their police arrest you for walking along, eating an ice cream cone.
“Blackburn’s order temporarily blocked four parts of the law until she can issue a final ruling. Those measures would:
Make it a crime for an illegal immigrant to solicit work.
Make it a crime to transport or harbor an illegal immigrant.
Allow discrimination lawsuits against companies that dismiss legal workers while hiring illegal immigrants.
Forbid businesses from taking tax deductions for wages paid to workers who are in the country illegally”
Again, the federal govt/ Obama is contesting these actions of Alabama. Its argument is that it, alone, has the constitutional duty to deal with immigrants. BUT IT ISN’T DOING THIS!! It’s fobbing them off to the States..and when the States try to deal with them..it takes them to court.
Others opposed to the rule, argue that it violates the rights of free speech and travel. I’m afraid that I don’t see what these have to do with illegal immigration. Surely these activists aren’t declaring that it’s a basic human right to ‘travel’..and that illegal immigration becomes redefined as ‘travel’.
But – this is what the States are fighting. They are fighting a federal govt of the USA that refuses to do its duties and flings the results to the States..and the govt of Mexico that refuses to support and educate its most impoverished class – flinging them off to the US taxpayer.
ETAB
You really need to take a deep breath. Being with Barack Obama in a club consisting of the two smartest men in the world must be heady stuff. You really need to be a little careful so you don’t risk exploding like an overfilled balloon.
“Your view is illogical. You claim that IF you reject a fence, THEN you support illegals. Nonsense.”
Do you recall who made that statement? I’d really like to know the context.
“The ignorance of some about the problem of illegals in this country is astonishing.”
Expecting all people to be treated equally under the law without rewarding a chosen few is to show ignorance? Really?
“Again – simplistic opinions that say ‘keep all illegals out’ doesn’t deal with the realities… THINK!!! How does a state deal with such a mess? Realistically. That’s how. And Perry has done just that..:”
“Perry has done just that.” Really? Or has Perry decided like Arnold Schwartznegger in California that currying favor with the latino dominated legislature was the path of least resistence and could lead to huge rewards if he played his cards right. Arnold did and it did. Maybe it will work for the Texas blunderbuss and world class liar as well. We’ll see about that soon.
That is the kind of thinking that has made California a near hell on earth in many parts and is apparently doing the same for the state of Texas.
“Many people, with their automatic robotic response…”
You’re really hitting your stride with the name calling when anyone has the temerity to not pat you on the back for your not so brilliant, increasingly redundant and boring analyses regarding illegal immigration and Rick Perry.
“Several states — Texas, California, New York, Utah, Illinois, Washington, Nebraska, New Mexico, Maryland (community colleges), Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Kansas — have passed state laws providing in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens who have attended high school in the state for three or more years.”
I think you cite 12 states. I believe that leaves 38 states without such laws.
Or maybe 45 if you agree with Obama that there are 57 states total. I would not be too carried away with the fact that states such as Texas, California, New York, Illinois, New Mexico and Maryland have foisted such laws on the people of those respective states. It is a clear indicator that state legislatures and legislators have many and varying motives and incentives for doing some of the strange things they do. Most having to do with money and power along with clear criminal activity in several cases.
“Finally – a knee-jerk response of ‘throw them out’ and ‘deport them all’ when observing Perry’s actions in the state totally ignores that States cannot legally do this..and MUST provide education for them and can’t allow an economic underclass to develop! THINK rather than provide a robotic response.”
Are you referring to specific instances or just the generic anyone who disagrees with you? Or maybe you just make it up as you go along.
“I don’t think you are analyzing the situation very well.”
Really too bad that so many little people have a hard time understanding complex issues isn’t it ETAB? Maybe between you and Obama you can get us all think correctly. Won’t that be a wonderful day?
CGW/TTThomas
I don’t think you understand the situation about illegals and the difference rights and duties of the federal and state governments. You ought to do some research on this, although I’ve provided the data..and you ignore it.
1) For someone to state:
“Anyone opposed to a fence is for open borders” logically means the same as ‘If you reject a fence, then, you support illegals’. After all, the result of open border is–> illegals. Ever studied critical thinking?
2)Your second comment is unintelligible..(all people treated equally)..
3) Your attempt to compare Perry with the past Gov of California is your own opinion, non-factual and subjective. No comment.
4)Your outline of WHY the 12 states passed in-state tuition laws lacks empirical evidence for your conclusion.
Now, you are, yourself, not analyzing the situation. You are just focused on ‘bashing ETAB’ which is an irrelevant action. Why not address the issues of illegals in the US, and the problems created by the federal govt refusing to deal with them..and the resultant problems that have been sloughed on to the States? Don’t you consider that a more constructive way to spend your time on this thread?
Cheers, CGW/TTThomas.
Much better ETAB. Simply stop the name calling. Nothing wrong with civil discourse as far as I’m concerned. And yes I do understand a little about the constitution and the rights and responsibilities of the states. But that’s a different matter.
I find it interesting that the argument here is over Perry’s intent rather than the validity of the study I cited as the premise for the piece. No one is refuting those numbers, and no one is disputing the report that the state of Texas doesn’t follow up on those taking advantage of the Texas in-state tuition.
Also as clarification – while Maryland passed its own version of the DREAM Act, it has not become law because opponents successfully petitioned it to a referendum on the November, 2012 ballot. In turn, that referendum is being challenged in court by various pro-illegal groups despite the clear intent of over 130,000 Maryland voters to have their say (under Maryland law only about 55,000 valid signatures were necessary.)
In short, one has to question the unintended consequences of Texas passing its law back in 2001. No doubt it was passed with plenty of support, but maybe not so much forward thinking.
Why are these opinion journalist insisting that Gov. Perry is soft on illegal immigration or in favor of open borders when quite the opposite is true? I live in his state. I know first hand of his efforts to patrol/control our border w/ Mexico? The only thing I can figure is that these authors along w/ Rep Bachman, Sen Santorum and now Herman Cain are putting out this falsehood is that they have determined that only Romney has a chance of winning. Great. I’m soooooo excited.
Oh, and continuing on with the fight, Texas has, as has Georgia, Alabama and Arizona, passed a law (JJune 2011) with the support of Perry permitting its police to question the immigration status of those they arrest or legally detain and outlawing ‘sanctuary cities’.
I’m sure you also all know that Obama’s administration is already suing Arizona and Alabama..
The Democrats in the Texas legislature, however, voted against it and called it discriminatory.
Rarely mentioned but politically supported by Perry as Texas Governor was the North American Union’s call for ‘open borders’ between Mexico, the United States and Canada.
It’s actually a nice and useful piece of info. I’m glad that you simply shared this useful info with us. Please stay us informed like this. Thanks for sharing.