Perry: If you don’t support educating children of illegals, you don’t have a heart

posted at 11:14 pm on September 22, 2011 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, here’s the exchange of the night in lieu of a Quote of the Day. Perry’s answer is a transparent dodge, of course, and Santorum rightly calls him on it. The question isn’t whether children of illegals should be educated, it’s whether they should be subsidized by taxpayers with in-state tuition rates. Bad enough that Perry would be so lamely slippery on that point; doubly bad that he would turn defensive and sanctimonious to try to deflect the issue. This wasn’t the first time that he’s morally condemned his conservative critics on this subject either: Remember at the last debate when he lectured the audience about how Texas embraces its illegal students because, down there, “it doesn’t make any difference what the sound of your last name is”? The surest way to antagonize immigration hawks is to accuse them of nefarious motives yet he seems intent on doing so, again and again. That’s a fine strategy for appealing to Latinos in the general election and poisonous as a strategy for consolidating tea partiers in the primary, especially with Drudge now bannering these comments for the benefit of everyone who didn’t watch tonight. I don’t know what he’s thinking.

Verdict on the debate in three sentences: Santorum helped himself the most. Perry was terrible, to the point where Mark Hemingway at the Standard jokingly wondered whether he’d had a stroke during the second half. And it’s a disgrace that, in the course of two very long hours, not a single segment was devoted to the looming catastrophe in Europe and what our contenders plan to do to contain the damage from it if they’re elected. Pitiful.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 9 10 11

OnlyOrange on September 23, 2011 at 12:24 PM

I don’t disagree with any of your points. My point is that a state doesn’t have the authority to do those things and Texas is dealing with what we can under the circumstances. I have no reason to believe Perry wouldn’t do most if not all those things as president, but as governor of Texas it’s a different ballgame. The feds have to effectively close the border before I’m willing to even listen to “reform”.

cartooner on September 23, 2011 at 12:39 PM

People who effing luv immigration all hate the fence, and you are one of those people.

Really Right on September 23, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Than you haven’t read what I posted…you are an idiot simple because you have no clue what I believe in.
I think the fence is a waste of money, when their are other ways, which do not cost federal money, to do the same job.
E-verify, fine companies (real fines) that hire illegals, that’s a start…make it impossible for them to find a job, and the mouse won’t go looking for the cheese.
BTW, I do “luv” immigration, but despise illegal immigration…tell me, what country is your family from?

right2bright on September 23, 2011 at 12:39 PM

Vis-a-vis the Illegals problem, we need to start somewhere. A five year plan, a ten year plan, anything that moves us in the right direction. And the right direction in my mind involves a multi-pronged approach that — yes — includes mandatory deportation as its lynchpin:

1.) Employ the National Guard to secure the border.
2.) Establish and enforce severe criminal penalties for companies who employ illegal labor with the below exception*.
3.) Establish a three year window for those in the country illegally to check in at assigned ‘identification centers.’ Those who check in are finger-printed, photographed, and provide authorities with all relevant data regarding their current address, country of origin, and family units within our borders. Those who comply within this three year window are given documentation to allow them to work here legally* for an additional three years, at which time they will also be offered assistance to return home to their country of origin.
4.) After the three year window has expired, anyone caught here illegally would be subject to immediate deportation.

We don’t need a million busses, nor does this have to happen all at once. There will no doubt be law suits and any number of hurtles with which to cross. But if the laws and processes are designed to pass basic constitutional muster, we would at least have a beginning.

CaptFlood on September 23, 2011 at 12:52 PM

So you’re contending that the Texan people, in the space of a few years, have done a complete 180 degree turn on the issue?

That’s absurd on its face. Big money talked, and the interests of the Texan people walked – croney capitalism in it’s most raw form.

Rebar on September 23, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Yeah, genius, we’re all stupid corncobs who keep re-electing corrupt politicians who openly engage in crony capitalism while at the same time every goober off the greyhound from around the nation keeps moving here. I shoulda known a smart guy like you would see right through us!

cartooner on September 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM

How about this…you tell me which candidate would be willing to do what Ike did?

Irrelevant, you said it was impossible, yet it has already been done.

And you tell me, with all the laws passed in the last 50 years, if that would be legal or not?

You’re trying to say that it is now illegal to expel illegals? Absurd.

…and read the article again, he didn’t kick out 12 million illegals, just over 130,000 in the several months.

right2bright on September 23, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Many more self-deported rather than get caught. The same way many self-deported AZ when they got tough with illegals.

Fact is there is only upside when illegals are expelled, except for crony capitalists who pad their bottom lines at the expense of the American taxpayers. It is entirely possible, and necessary, to expel and force self-deportaion on all illegals, as well as eliminate magnet programs that attract them, like the DREAM act.

Rebar on September 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM

right2bright on September 23, 2011 at 12:39 PM

What are you talking about? Fences are cheap. Building a fence is one component of controlling the border. Israel built a fence and it works for them. Saying “the fence won’t work” or “it’s too expensive!” are code words for “I’m not really into controlling illegal immigration.”. So I am calling you a liar.

Everybody’s ancestors came to this country from somewhere. So what? This has nothing to do with right here right now.

If 98% of the illegals in this country were to all just leave and go home, would this please or displease you?

Really Right on September 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM

People who effing luv immigration all hate the fence, and you are one of those people.

Really Right on September 23, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Than you haven’t read what I posted…you are an idiot simple because you have no clue what I believe in.
I think the fence is a waste of money, when their are other ways, which do not cost federal money, to do the same job.
E-verify, fine companies (real fines) that hire illegals, that’s a start…make it impossible for them to find a job, and the mouse won’t go looking for the cheese.
BTW, I do “luv” immigration, but despise illegal immigration…tell me, what country is your family from?

right2bright on September 23, 2011 at 12:39 PM

Count me with you, right2bright.

cartooner on September 23, 2011 at 12:55 PM

Still think you guys are putting too much stock in these debates.

rockmom on September 23, 2011 at 7:06 AM

I don’t. I think it gives us a measure of each candidate’s competency and comfort when in the spotlight. In addition, it shows the American public how well he/she communicates positions, arguments and rebuttals, and whether or not there’s some thinking going on or just a regurgitation of talking points.

I didn’t watch last night and haven’t watched any of them yet. It was stupid to schedule a debate during the week when all the new TV shows are debuting. I watched a bunch of them, they were much more entertaining.

rockmom on September 23, 2011 at 7:06 AM

Wow.

It really doesn’t matter who wins the GOP nomination at this point…

rockmom on September 23, 2011 at 7:06 AM

Oh, it most certainly does matter. You clearly didn’t see Perry’s performance (if you want to call it that).

he or she is going to win the general election and is going to have a conservative House and Senate which will repeal Obamacare and do all the other things we want.

rockmom on September 23, 2011 at 7:06 AM

That’s a truckload of assumptions you’ve unloaded there.

Why worry about whether Rick Perry had fabulous answers to every question, or Mitt seemed canned as usual? Or even whether Sarah Palin is yet going to join the race. Any of them will be a 1000% improvement…

rockmom on September 23, 2011 at 7:06 AM

Because it’s not a given that the Republican nominee is going to win in November 2012. The Repub candidate had better be fully prepared.

And since you didn’t watch last night, Rick Perry proved that he’s not ready for primetime despite what he, his handlers and his supporters might think.

I’m more worried about what else Ben Bernanke is going to do to what’s left of my retirement funds.

rockmom on September 23, 2011 at 7:06 AM

Bernake is the least of your problems. Monetary policy, which is what he’s responsible for, isn’t what’s affecting your retirement funds. It’s the overall fiscal and social policies of those in the Exectutive and Legislative branches of our Federal government that are affecting your retirement funds.

eanax on September 23, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Yeah, genius, we’re all stupid corncobs who keep re-electing corrupt politicians who openly engage in crony capitalism while at the same time every goober off the greyhound from around the nation keeps moving here. I shoulda known a smart guy like you would see right through us!

cartooner on September 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM

“Us” includes me, and I have yet to meet anyone who wants illegals to be anything other than deported immediately.

And there is no other explanation when you look at the poll of Texas voters wanted vs. what the legislature and Perry have done.

Politicians taking big money interests over the will of the people is hardly a new phenomena, nor is Texas immune to it.

Rebar on September 23, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Last night’s debate winner? Sarah Palin! With Perry basically stealing defeat from the jaws of victory in one sentence. She stands to come in now and take the field by storm and run as the only true conservative out there.

I hope she runs!

Scorched_Earth on September 23, 2011 at 1:00 PM

What are you talking about? Fences are cheap. Building a fence is one component of controlling the border. Israel built a fence and it works for them. Saying “the fence won’t work” or “it’s too expensive!” are code words for “I’m not really into controlling illegal immigration.”. So I am calling you a liar.

Everybody’s ancestors came to this country from somewhere. So what? This has nothing to do with right here right now.

If 98% of the illegals in this country were to all just leave and go home, would this please or displease you?

Really Right on September 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM

You’re an idiot. The Texas border is 1254 miles in the middle of a river in some of the most desolate terrain in the southwest. Israel’s fence wasn’t cheap, only a fraction as long. So throw “liar” around all you want because it means little coming from a dumbass.

cartooner on September 23, 2011 at 1:02 PM

And pretending that these are not huge obstacles…well like I said, naive…

right2bright on September 23, 2011 at 12:19 PM

As Rebar pointed out is been done before and I actually did sit down and work it out.

Some things we must do are unpleasant. Allowing illegals to stay here is destroying our country. They have to go.

While we are at it, we need to end all five of the existing guest worker progams and send those folks home too. We need to find work for our own FIRST.

dogsoldier on September 23, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Just make sure you understand that the Houston Chron is like reporting of the NYT…they were and solidly are behind Obama…if he was a democrat they would embrace his policy.
Not saying what he is doing is best…just that your source is tainted.

right2bright on September 23, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Just to make sure you understand, harsh anti-immigration policy is a losing position in Texas. Why do you think the DREAM Act of Texas passed with zero (0) nay votes in the Senate? This means that REPUBLICANS and Democrats supported the bill. Why? Because it was widely supported in Texas. This bill was passed in 2001…Perry had only been in office for a year. So the Houston Chronicles statement that harsh anti-immigration policy is a long standing tradition is correct. Do you believe that the government should be governed by the people and for the people? Because that is what took place in Texas with the DreAM Act. The state legislature passed a bill and the Governor signed a bill that was widely supported by the people.

ramrants on September 23, 2011 at 1:10 PM

The very large majority of Texans want illegals – ALL ILLEGALS – out. Period, end of story.

That Perry and the legislature pass laws like the DREAM act, has nothing to do with the will of the Texan people, and everything to do with pervasive croney capitalism.

Rebar on September 23, 2011 at 12:10 PM

The Texas DREAM Act passed 10 years ago. 10 years ago, illegal immigration was not a hot issue with people. Just because people have changed their mind in 10 YEARS time doesn’t mean the bill passed because of cronyism. It passed because it was a widely supported bill at the time. Please show me where this was not widely supported in 2001 – TEN YEARS AGO.

ramrants on September 23, 2011 at 1:15 PM

The state legislature passed a bill and the Governor signed a bill that was widely supported by the people.

ramrants on September 23, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Maybe the Texan people on whatever planet you’re on, but the Texans on this one certainly do not:

Texas voters are willing to end automatic citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants, according to the latest University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll.

The poll also found them willing to crack down on immigration in a number of other ways — punishing employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, taking in-state tuition away from immigrants’ children, opposing a path to citizenship for immigrants who are currently in the country illegally and cracking down on so-called sanctuary cities.

Tht is just as, if not more so, hard line than conservatives from the rest of the states want.

Conservatives want the illegals OUT, not pandered to. Perry’s flameout is proof positive of this.

Rebar on September 23, 2011 at 1:16 PM

How can she be in a debate when she hasn’t announced she is
running?

BTW, Christie, Rudy, and others as yet unnamed have not announced
yet either; therefore, are also not in the debates. There will
be many debates; don’t worry, whomever announces in the next
month or so will not miss much.

Amjean on September 23, 2011 at 10:49 AM

That’s the point…she isn’t running, just like Christy and Rudy, they are not interested in leading.
This is not the “chalk board monitor”, this is the most powerful position on earth…if you don’t have the “fire in the belly”, if you can’t make up your mind by now, during the worst economic period of our recent history, than I and most others, are not interested in a poser.
We are weighing the options now of who can best lead from the gitgo…not someone sitting on the sidelines taking notes and deciding what the best answers are…we need a bold, brave, courageous leader, not afraid of getting into the arena…not a Facebook blogger.

right2bright on September 23, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Where is it “etched in stone” that Palin or anyone else
has to announce by a certain date and attend all 15 debates?

Why do you think you know it all? You haven’t given any evidence in your rambling postings that you know much about the process.
Your point of view is laughable.

Amjean on September 23, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Many more self-deported rather than get caught. The same way many self-deported AZ when they got tough with illegals.

Fact is there is only upside when illegals are expelled, except for crony capitalists who pad their bottom lines at the expense of the American taxpayers. It is entirely possible, and necessary, to expel and force self-deportaion on all illegals, as well as eliminate magnet programs that attract them, like the DREAM act.

Rebar on September 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM

As you correctly illustrate, multiple methods can be used to get illegals to return to their country of origin.

Many have said that rounding up 30 million people would be overwhelmingly expensive, which is complete nonsense!

Suppose I told you there are at least a dozen things that could be done to cause the illegals to deliver themselves to authorities.

Can you think of one, right off the top of your head?

dogsoldier on September 23, 2011 at 1:16 PM

What are you talking about? Fences are cheap. Building a fence is one component of controlling the border. Israel built a fence and it works for them. Saying “the fence won’t work” or “it’s too expensive!” are code words for “I’m not really into controlling illegal immigration.”. So I am calling you a liar.

Everybody’s ancestors came to this country from somewhere. So what? This has nothing to do with right here right now.

If 98% of the illegals in this country were to all just leave and go home, would this please or displease you?

Really Right on September 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM

You’re an idiot. The Texas border is 1254 miles in the middle of a river in some of the most desolate terrain in the southwest. Israel’s fence wasn’t cheap, only a fraction as long. So throw “liar” around all you want because it means little coming from a dumbass.

cartooner on September 23, 2011 at 1:02 PM

For those airheads who think a border fence would be too long,
too expensive, in the middle of a river (hell, engineers have put many bridges in a river – what’s the problem with a little ole
fence?), etc. etc. – I have a suggestion.

Start a private organization to build the fence; invite contributions from citizens and see where it goes. The fence
would be up in no time, barring all the lawsuits from idiots.

Amjean on September 23, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Rebar on September 23, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Please show my where this bill was widely denounced at the time it passed. You are using a poll taken 10 years after the law passed. Please show me where, 10 years ago, this was such an unpopular vote and all the state legislatures voted against what their constituents wanted because they are all evil corporate cronies or whatever your reason you think.

But please, show me the evidence that the majority of Texans did not support this bill when it passed and the legislature and Perry ignored them.

ramrants on September 23, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Can you think of one, right off the top of your head?

dogsoldier on September 23, 2011 at 1:16 PM

I can think of one, which will guarantee virtually ever illegal will self deport within a few month.

Mandatory E-Verify, and make knowing hiring an illegal a third degree felony with a stiff fine and a minimum one week jail sentence for each one hired.

With that kind of “skin in the game”, not one in a thousand employers will risk spending even a day in jail to hire an illegal. No jobs = no illegals.

Rebar on September 23, 2011 at 1:23 PM

I haven’t had a chance to read all the comments since midnight, but I want to bump this.

Yes, weakest moment of the night for Perry; he should explain it better.

I disagree with you though, that Santorum helped himself the most. He came off as a bully when he repeatedly interrupted Perry’s answer, to the point where Wallace had to tell him he was out of line and an audience member had to shout, “Let him talk!”
ITA on Romney. He should not be walking away unscathed, but at least Perry went after him. NO ONE else is. PERRY is doing the work no one else will on that score.

Romney came off as a liar with his “I’m not a flip-flopper! I stand by every word I’ve ever said! I write down my words and words mean something, yada, yada, yada.”

I also wish Perry would point out that the reason he doesn’t support a fence is because half the border is a river — the Rio Grande that changes course. This was the question, iirc, where Santorum wouldn’t shut up, though, so maybe Perry couldn’t get that in (he barely got a word in edge-wise as it was).

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on September 23, 2011 at 12:03 AM

I had to go back and watch the parts I missed earlier.

I agree with everything you said.

The only thing I would add is that Herman Cain is awesome and gets better and better.

I think Perry will recover from this. He had 2 bad answers. This one wouldn’t even have been bad if he didn’t add the stupid “heart” thing. The other was after about and hour and a half when he was talking about Romney flip flopping. I almost fell asleep waiting for him to finish.

He can learn. He can be coached. And he needs to fire whoever told him to go hard after Romney this debate. Perry did better the last debate when Romney looked embarrassing going after Perry.
There will be ups and down during the campaign. This wasn’t Perry’s night. With the exception of Cain, Perry would still make the best candidate and best President of those declared and undeclared.

If only Cain could pull this off. Love the guy.
And kudos to Gingrich who again did conservatives proud. Not my pick, but keep it up Newt.

Elisa on September 23, 2011 at 12:21 AM

Elisa on September 23, 2011 at 1:24 PM

Yes, FOX definitely was giving Romney cover and slid in a few shots at Perry. But Perry should have handled it better. No excuses. He handled it better in the last debate which was a piling on.

He can do better. It’s not over. He’d still be the best candidate after Herman Cain, of course. But it was a disappointment.

Elisa on September 23, 2011 at 1:24 PM

OnlyOrange on September 23, 2011 at 12:24 PM

I don’t disagree with any of your points. My point is that a state doesn’t have the authority to do those things and Texas is dealing with what we can under the circumstances. I have no reason to believe Perry wouldn’t do most if not all those things as president, but as governor of Texas it’s a different ballgame. The feds have to effectively close the border before I’m willing to even listen to “reform”.

cartooner on September 23, 2011 at 12:39 PM

The problem is that no one except a “Perry believer” can see any evidence that he would

His history doesn’t support the presumption that he’d take a strong stance on illegals, and his debate performance and strategy indicated the exact opposite — “compassion” rather than constitutional conservatism…

The “secure the borders first and then we’ll talk” is simply a way for him to postpone any frank discussion or strong stance that might be expected of him…

He’s running for a position that would give him the “federal power” to take a stronger stance, but instead he defends his compassionate actions…

OnlyOrange on September 23, 2011 at 1:25 PM

From the Herman Cain Won the Debate thread:

I support Perry because Cain was going no where in the polls and with money (which is necessary).

But I agree with so many of the comments here that I can’t even quote them all.

I have always loved Cain. Cain has been my first choice all summer. Would make the best President, the best candidate and is the most electable.

If Cain started rising in the polls, I would switch in a heartbeat from Perry. (Who did very poorly last night, but one debate is not fatal and can be overcome.)

Besides all the many reasons to respect and love Herman Cain, I would want him running just so I could hear him say “Chilean” over and over. lol

Seriously though, I while I still have respect for Santorum, I don’t think he will come off well in a general. A bit whiny. But a man of great integrity who would make a great President.

Bachmann is off my radar now. Can’t see her as a good candidate.

Palin has lost some of my respect and she has lost my trust. If she was the nominee I would support her, but not with my heart and I still have serious doubts that she can overcome her negatives enough to win in enough states. States which in 2012 could easily go to Cain or Perry.

So maybe a miracle will happen and Cain will rise in the polls. Because he is a Godsend to the Republican party and this country.

He would mop up the floor with Obama.

Elisa on September 23, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Elisa on September 23, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Amazing amounts of comments!
My 2 cents- absolutely brutal to impugn the motives of people on a core principle throughout history- that of protecting your borders and yes, culture. I mean, he wasn’t even smart enough to understand the need to at least nuance it!
He’s John Connolly 2.0 for you old timers- the moment is too big for him.

jjshaka on September 23, 2011 at 1:28 PM

But please, show me the evidence that the majority of Texans did not support this bill when it passed and the legislature and Perry ignored them.

ramrants on September 23, 2011 at 1:22 PM

I don’t have any resources that stretch back that far.

Two things, however. Just because I cannot find one, doesn’t prove your point.

Two, the point is irrelevant anyway. Americans, and especially Texans, TODAY want illegals expelled. Texans TODAY want birthright citizenship revoked. Texans TODAY want the DREAM act repealed.

T. O. D. A. Y. And today is all that matters, not ten years ago.

Rebar on September 23, 2011 at 1:28 PM

He can learn. He can be coached.

Elisa on September 23, 2011 at 12:21 AM

Same thing was said about Bush. Do you really want to go thru another 4 years or 8 years of that?

lorien1973 on September 23, 2011 at 12:30 AM

Nope. I don’t. But the other options (including undeclared) are worse for the next 4 years, if they can get elected at all.

The only good option (great option, in fact) is Herman Cain. Until he rises in the polls, either by Perry and Bachmann sinking and/or Palin not running and hopefully endorsing Cain, I have no other choice than Perry.

A very serious concern I have about Palins negatives is not simply her electablity (although none of them is “unelectable.”)

It is precisely what you bring up. 4-8 years of this? Palin will have alot of trouble governing in Washington. Even if she is elected, her negatives will probably still be high around the country. So she will have no mandate to overcome those who will fight her. REagan had a mandate.

Palin will still have people in this country who voted for her because they hate Obama, who still will dislike Palin. (and the media will make sure everyone know that’s why she got electe.)

That is a hard one to overcome when governing in a town who will not accept her and with a media who is out to destroy everything she does.

Elisa on September 23, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Rebar on September 23, 2011 at 1:28 PM

but you are harping on Perry supporting the DREAM act that was passed 10 years ago. And my point that the bill was widely supported is correct, and relevant.

It’s like if I buy you chocolate ice cream for 10 years because you like chocolate ice cream. Then one day you decide you don’t like chocolate ice cream anymore and HOW DARE I get you chocolate ice cream!!!! And you throw a big fit about how I must be taking money from the ice cream truck guy since I am now pushing chocolate ice cream on you. Except, you liked chocolate ice cream for 10 years.

Look, I have issues with Perry. How he has handled immigration in Texas isn’t one of them. Are you from Texas?

ramrants on September 23, 2011 at 1:40 PM

With that kind of “skin in the game”, not one in a thousand employers will risk spending even a day in jail to hire an illegal. No jobs = no illegals.

Rebar on September 23, 2011 at 1:23 PM

The lack of work will cause most to leave, but according to many reports 33% of illegals are on welfare. Many of this group would be unaffected by e-verify.

dogsoldier on September 23, 2011 at 1:40 PM

The Texas DREAM Act passed 10 years ago. 10 years ago, illegal immigration was not a hot issue with people. Just because people have changed their mind in 10 YEARS time doesn’t mean the bill passed because of cronyism. It passed because it was a widely supported bill at the time. Please show me where this was not widely supported in 2001 – TEN YEARS AGO.

ramrants on September 23, 2011 at 1:15 PM

You could be correct about the state of things in Texas in 2001 and how the DREAM Act was widely supported at the time and it still wouldn’t matter…because Perry doubled down on all of it last night.

It is Perry’s current position to support allowing illegals to attend Texas public universities at in-state rates. That is enticement for them to come (along with all the other enticements).

Missy on September 23, 2011 at 1:41 PM

The 1% that graduate and meet college admission requirements can pay in-state tuition since they otherwise qualify for it. They must agree to apply for legal residency (not citizenship)if or when they can.
This is not a subsidy, it is a rate. (emphasis mine – C_loader) We feel it’s better to give them a chance to be productive rather than dependent on taxpayers. WE CAN’T DEPORT THEM––the feds won’t.
Oh, and Perry was NOT opposed to AZ SB1070, he supported Gov. Brewer when the other border governors boycotted Arizona. He merely said he didn’t think that law was right for Texas.

cartooner on September 23, 2011 at 11:48 AM

I call B.S.

It is NOT a rate – it most certainly IS a SUBSIDY, paid for by American students from other states not bordering Texas.

I should know, as I paid this subsidy myself!!!

cane_loader on September 23, 2011 at 1:51 PM

It is Perry’s current position to support allowing illegals to attend Texas public universities at in-state rates. That is enticement for them to come (along with all the other enticements).

Missy on September 23, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Here is my answer.

More: Perry called me “heartless” last night because I oppose the DREAM act.

Last. Night. And in the other debate, he called me a racist. Along with the very large majority of Texans. Now I’m supposed to forgive his gaffes and vote for that man? Right.

I am from Texas, the DFW area, and everyone I know adheres to the poll I previously linked, if not even more hard line against illegals, and from the opinions I heard, Perry couldn’t get elected dogcatcher today.

Rebar on September 23, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Rebar on September 23, 2011 at 1:51 PM

I’m in Texas and I’m totally with you on illegal immigration.

I’m okay with Perry being governor. I don’t like his position on immigration and I don’t like a bunch of other stuff, but I give him credit for the good things he’s done. He’s certainly been the best available candidate in the elections I’ve voted in.

I just am not real sure he’s White House material.

Missy on September 23, 2011 at 2:04 PM

It is Perry’s current position to support allowing illegals to attend Texas public universities at in-state rates. That is enticement for them to come (along with all the other enticements).

If you think that’s why illegals come to the US, you really don’t understand the dynamic. And you’d probably be shocked when confronted by the reality of illegals streaming from Central and South America through Mexico to reach the US border.

http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/which-way-home/index.html

bayam on September 23, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Do you believe that the government should be governed by the people and for the people? Because that is what took place in Texas with the DreAM Act. The state legislature passed a bill and the Governor signed a bill that was widely supported by the people.

ramrants on September 23, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Correct – if, and only if Texas has the right to make immigration policy for the rest of the U.S. citizens who do not live in Texas.

Texas has special responsibilities as a border state, whether they like it or not, even if the feds aren’t enforcing the law. By leaving the door open, the illegals that the “will” of the Texas people wants to allow in, for their own business reasons, are flooding OTHER states.

This is the best way I can put it:

When you live in a community college dorm with an inside hallway, accessible from the outside through a communal entry door, you are not permitted to prop the door open. For the sake of protecting the safety of your neighbors, you must use your key.

Now you may (read “Texas”) prop the door open, and say that it’s the responsibility of the adult Resident Assistant on site (read, “the federal government”) to close that door if you propped it open to let in some non-college buddies you invited to a party.

And if the door stays propped open, and damage and thefts occur in the dorm, it ultimately IS the Resident Assistant’s job to make sure that students are following the rules and that the door stays closed.

BUT, who bears the ultimate blame for when dorm neighbors get their stereos stolen and these non-college friends start eating for free in the dorm cafeteria?

The student who took the initial, illegal action of leaving the door open for the non-college friends he chose to invite into the communal dorm!

I feel like a student in that dorm with an a$$hole neighbor who keeps propping the damn door open, and then says it’s his right to leave the door open because he likes having his friends around.

My dorm room is at risk because of my neighbor, and that’s B.S., and he’s a sh-thead for telling me I don’t have a heart for letting a bunch of outside people have free reign within the dorm I live in!!!

cane_loader on September 23, 2011 at 2:10 PM

If you think that’s why illegals come to the US, you really don’t understand the dynamic.

Of course I don’t think that’s the sole reason why they come. I said it was “an enticement (along with all the other enticements).” There are also other reasons. DUH.

And I’m in Texas, so I’m “confronted by the reality” on a daily basis.

What an idiotic comment.

Missy on September 23, 2011 at 2:10 PM

I’m okay with Perry being governor.

Missy on September 23, 2011 at 2:04 PM

He was better than his opponent, but that’s not a glowing recommendation. Texas is a lot more conservative than he is, my hope is that someone who better reflects the state, runs next time.

bayam on September 23, 2011 at 2:06 PM

No one care why illegals come to the US, except to make them stop coming.

Rebar on September 23, 2011 at 2:11 PM

It is Perry’s current position to support allowing illegals to attend Texas public universities at in-state rates. That is enticement for them to come (along with all the other enticements).

Missy on September 23, 2011 at 1:41 PM

what? Are you serious?

Illegal immigrants aren’t risking life an limb crossing the border so they can go to college. They are coming here to work. They can’t get into a college because most of them can’t read. And none of them speak English.

ramrants on September 23, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Palin’s a genius for waiting for Perry to blow himself up.

We need her in the race.

DaMav on September 23, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Texas has special responsibilities as a border state, whether they like it or not, even if the feds aren’t enforcing the law. By leaving the door open, the illegals that the “will” of the Texas people wants to allow in, for their own business reasons, are flooding OTHER states.

cane_loader on September 23, 2011 at 2:10 PM

You just made my point for me. Perry is getting beat up for not doign the job that LEGALLY HE CAN’T DO.

Securing the borders is a Federal responsibility. The states have neither the money, the man power, nor the jurisdiction to keep illegals out. This is the point I have been trying to make. The people of Texas don’t want the illegals here anymore than the rest of the country, but there is nothing LEGALLY they can do about it. Therefore, since they have to live with these people, that they don’t want here in the first place but can’t deport, they have crafted a public policy that is in the interest of everyone in the state. The people of texas have decided since they have to live with these people, the ones they don’t want here but they can’t deport, they would rather spend their money educating them than spend their money incarcerating them. It is cheaper to educate them than it is to incarcerate them.

But to continue to beat Perry up for not doing a job that he legally, and financially, cannot do is just wrong. It’s like President Obama telling the people of Greece that all state employees have to take a 50% cut in pay because the state can no longer afford to pay them. He has neither the jurisdiction nor authority to do so.

You can’t hold Perry, or any other border state Gov, responsible for not doing the job the federal government won’t do.

ramrants on September 23, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Illegal immigrants aren’t risking life an limb crossing the border so they can go to college. They are coming here to work. They can’t get into a college because most of them can’t read. And none of them speak English.

ramrants on September 23, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Yeah, no kidding. What is the subject of this thread? The DREAM Act. Not “the reason why illegals come to the US.” I am commenting on the subject of the thread.

The freebies handed out to illegals – welfare, education, medical care – are undeniably PART of the reason why they come. The DREAM Act is on that list of freebies. Go to a welfare office in Texas and see how many illegals you encounter. They ain’t all working, I promise you.

I never said the DREAM Act was the sole reason why they come. I said it was “an enticement (along with all the other enticements).” It is one thing on a long list, just as Perry’s support of it is also another thing on a long list of his positions on illegal immigration. Positions I don’t like, many of which are in support of programs the country cannot afford.

Missy on September 23, 2011 at 2:46 PM

You can’t hold Perry, or any other border state Gov, responsible for not doing the job the federal government won’t do.

ramrants on September 23, 2011 at 2:29 PM

But you CAN and SHOULD be able to hold Perry responsible for saying what he’d do, as head of that Federal government, to address the issue…

Remind us — was that a debate of candidates for Governor of Texas or President of the United States…

OnlyOrange on September 23, 2011 at 2:48 PM

What are you talking about? Fences are cheap. Building a fence is one component of controlling the border. Israel built a fence and it works for them. Saying “the fence won’t work” or “it’s too expensive!” are code words for “I’m not really into controlling illegal immigration.”. So I am calling you a liar.

Everybody’s ancestors came to this country from somewhere. So what? This has nothing to do with right here right now.

If 98% of the illegals in this country were to all just leave and go home, would this please or displease you?

Really Right on September 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM

Pal, fences to keep the immigrants out is not cheap…better do a little research.
And throw away your little decoder ring. And you can call me a liar, because you are sitting behind some computer somewhere out of my reach…brave man you are.
So you tell me brainiac…where did I lie? No fair using your Captain Magic decoder ring…
Here is something that confuses you, people can have different opinion than you, and they can be just as valid…children have a hard time understanding that.
I would like all of the illegals to get up and leave, but I don’t want to pay billions upon billions, create a new federal agency run like the HSA, to process and remove…and thanks for telling us your family were immigrants, were they “legal”?

right2bright on September 23, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Palin’s a genius for waiting for Perry to blow himself up.

We need her in the race.

DaMav on September 23, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Palin is not a leader…a leader would be out leading the debates, not waiting for someone to make a mistake. But she is good at Facebook…

right2bright on September 23, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Palin is not a leader…a leader would be out leading the debates, not waiting for someone to make a mistake. But she is good at Facebook…

right2bright on September 23, 2011 at 2:58 PM

We’ve seen your definition of a leader and he did a face plant last night.

sharrukin on September 23, 2011 at 3:00 PM

POSSIBLE PALIN VOTER

I am not a fan but Governor Palin is more of a man than Perry will ever be! You didn’t hear this garbage with her!

POSSIBLE DEM VOTER

My 16 year old son died last October and his Social Security number was being used a scant few months later. According to law enforcement, by an hispanis moving from TEXAS to New Jersey!

IlikedAUH2O on September 23, 2011 at 3:15 PM

But you CAN and SHOULD be able to hold Perry responsible for saying what he’d do, as head of that Federal government, to address the issue…

Remind us — was that a debate of candidates for Governor of Texas or President of the United States…

OnlyOrange on September 23, 2011 at 2:48 PM

He has said repeatedly, over and over that he would secure the borders. His press release he issued when AZ passed their law spoke mainly to the problem of securing the borders (three paragraphs if I remember correctly). In the last election he had, he spoke extensively about securing the borders. He has asked Obama for an additional 1000 troops (and been rejected) to secure the borders. In interviews he has given he has said we have to secure the borders. In the Presidential debates, he has said he must secure the borders. Why is this not good enough?

The debate may have been a Presidential debate, but Perry is getting hammered for the decisions he made as a Governor. The decisions he will make as a president will be different than the decisions he will make as governor, because the role and responsibilities are different. As a Governor HE CANNOT do anything to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. As a President, he can.

ramrants on September 23, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Both Romney and Santorum called the Texas Dream Act a “magnet” for illegal immigration.

Nobody crosses the border, breaking the law in BOTH nations, so that their kid can go to university for LESS when their kid can go to university FOR FREE in Mexico.

The merits/flaws of the Texas Dream Act certainly can and should be debated, but please stop calling it a “magnet.”

itsacookbook on September 23, 2011 at 3:30 PM

right2bright on September 23, 2011 at 2:57 PM

As far a I can tell, there is not one Democrat in the country who wants the fence built. Why would that be? Is it because the Dems just hate to blow money on none cost-effective stuff? I don’t think so.

When there is a choice between A or B, and 100% of one party is for A, that is called a partisan political issue. Are you a Democrat? Do you like the job Janet Napolitano is doing on border security?

Really Right on September 23, 2011 at 3:48 PM

ramrants on September 23, 2011 at 3:29 PM

If only he could argue his defense as eloquently as you, and some others, he wouldn’t be in this position…

Meanwhile, he’s accountable for his record, as he should be — and expected to articulate clearly what he’d do differently — as he should also be.

It’s the same as with Romney and Romneycare… no one is treating him unfairly in that regard.

What was unfair, if anything, is the appearance (and likely reality) of both the moderators and the other candidates going after him. But, that was to be expected, and he could’ve turned it to his advantage, but did not…

He dealt with that “targeting” much better in the CNN/Tea Party debate than he did last night…

OnlyOrange on September 23, 2011 at 3:52 PM

Hannity just said that Gov. Perry is coming up at the top of the hour (4PM?) on his radio show.

bluefox on September 23, 2011 at 3:52 PM

bluefox on September 23, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Health care also is NOT a magnet. Yes, the illegals stress our health care delivery system, but they don’t come here for health care.

Because Mexico also has universal health care.

So why do they come?

For JOBS that pay more than what they can get in Mexico

and

our easily gamed WELFARE system.

We have federal laws against hiring illegals that we cannot enforce… because of the federal government.

We have a welfare system that we can’t clean up… because of the federal government.

And we have an outdated provision in the 14th amendment that allows “anchor babies” because of… the federal government.

If we get our act together on those three things, we won’t need a fence – which might be a “simple” solution, but it certainly isn’t a timely one.

itsacookbook on September 23, 2011 at 3:54 PM

The merits/flaws of the Texas Dream Act certainly can and should be debated, but please stop calling it a “magnet.”

itsacookbook on September 23, 2011 at 3:30 PM

It’s only a part of the larger magnet of a free education K-12, and then reduced cost college degree…

And, the free K-12 has shown to be a magnet, with families sending their kids across the borders to stay with relatives in order to get a free education, free medical care, etc. — all federal, instead of state, initiatives.

The Dream Act is just the “icing on the cake” of a free lunch…

OnlyOrange on September 23, 2011 at 3:56 PM

IlikedAUH2O on September 23, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Sorry for your loss and hope the sorrow gets lighter and lighter as time goes by.

bluefox on September 23, 2011 at 3:57 PM

free education K-12…
OnlyOrange on September 23, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Forced upon Texas by the Supreme Court in 1982. Plyler v. Doe

itsacookbook on September 23, 2011 at 4:01 PM

itsacookbook on September 23, 2011 at 3:54 PM

Good post. I would put out there, though, that although Mexico has universal healthcare and free college, those things won’t be available to immigrants after they leave Mexico.

So the fact that we give them K-12 education, a certain amount of medical care and in-state tuition is important. When they come for the better-paying jobs and the easily-gamed welfare, they know that they’ll have those things as well. If we didn’t offer them – if they knew that when they got here they might get a job but no food stamps and no medical care and that their kids wouldn’t be allowed in schools – that might very well have a collective effect on their decision whether or not to come.

Not to say that we’re going to stop doing those things any time soon, but that just because Mexico offers them too doesn’t mean they’re not part of the decision equation.

Missy on September 23, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Another thing that would help our illegal problem would be to persuade Mexico to return to their policy that illegal emigrants lost their Mexican citizenship.

But you can’t get cooperation like that from Mexico by sticking them in the eye, like a concertina wire fence would do…. or giving weapons to drug lords.

itsacookbook on September 23, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Forced upon Texas by the Supreme Court in 1982. Plyler v. Doe

itsacookbook on September 23, 2011 at 4:01 PM

I pointed that out — if you’ll read my post. I know, I was living in San Antonio at that time, and got to see the results…

OnlyOrange on September 23, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Missy on September 23, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Yes, but how can you deny those services if you can’t check status?

We can’t enforce our own laws. THAT’S the magnet.

btw, Mexico is fully aware of the pitfalls of illegal immigration. They fight it on their southern border… and they have zero tolerance for it.

itsacookbook on September 23, 2011 at 4:19 PM

The bottom line is if the GOP doesn’t deal with the millions of illegal immigrants in this country in a humane and compassionate way, we will lose generations of voters. But we shouldn’t do it just for that reason. We should do it because it’s what is right. Seal the borders. Deal with illegal immigrants that are here now once and for all. This is our window of opportunity.

TheRightMan on September 23, 2011 at 7:49 AM

THIS. While Perry blew the debate and missed several opportunities to shine, I don’t think it changes the fact that all things considered, he’s pragmatically much better than Mitt.

Folks do your research on Texas, her history, border and demographics, then you might understand the unique situation Perry is in. The reality is that the over the decades the Feds have created the mess that we have now. No magic bullet(s) will fix it, without a concerted commitment from the Feds to do so.

Another way to rate the candidates would be to find the common areas of agreement on the basis of economic costs vs benefit, liberty & States Rights. Apply Reagan’s rule and see if Perry is still agreeing with you on more than 80% of the issues.

For example, ObamaCare affects 17% or the economy and Mittness was MIA during the entirety of that cramdown. Plus the fact that he steered a mandatory insurance enrollment to solve a problem where only 8% of MA residents were without stinks more than an EO with opt-out. Then there’s the jobs destruction, capital flight and increased costs over and beyond the most pessimistic estimates at the time.

Anyhoo, 100% minus the 17% hit for RomneyCare, means he’s at 83%, then factor a few other milquetoast issues and I rate Mitt at best 75% in agreement with my principles. Perry, on the other hand I’m rating him as 85% in agreement with my principles

AH_C on September 23, 2011 at 4:20 PM

got to see the results…

OnlyOrange on September 23, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Sorry, didn’t see your earlier post.

And ESL… how’s that for a can of worms. Do other states have ESL?

We have kids in our school district who just sit in the hallway all day because we do not have enough bi-lingual teachers. How is this helping anyone?

I don’t understand the equating of citizens with non-citizens in the Plyler v Doe ruling, but I do understand that it is the root of a lot of bad stuff.

itsacookbook on September 23, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Yes, but how can you deny those services if you can’t check status?

We can’t enforce our own laws. THAT’S the magnet.

btw, Mexico is fully aware of the pitfalls of illegal immigration. They fight it on their southern border… and they have zero tolerance for it.

itsacookbook on September 23, 2011 at 4:19 PM

I’m with you. Mexico is highly dependent on the money that they send back. It’s something like the number 3 revenue stream in the country.

Think about it. Illegals in the US are so poor, so downtrodden, so underprivileged in their shadowy lives that they send tens of billions of dollars BACK to Mexico every year.

Every grocery store in Texas has a Western Union service, and the Spanish instructions are posted more prominently than the English ones.

Missy on September 23, 2011 at 4:29 PM

I’m with you. Mexico is highly dependent on the money that they send back. It’s something like the number 3 revenue stream in the country.

Think about it. Illegals in the US are so poor, so downtrodden, so underprivileged in their shadowy lives that they send tens of billions of dollars BACK to Mexico every year.

Every grocery store in Texas has a Western Union service, and the Spanish instructions are posted more prominently than the English ones.

Missy on September 23, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Great point!

Amjean on September 23, 2011 at 4:36 PM

I’m with you. Mexico is highly dependent on the money that they send back. It’s something like the number 3 revenue stream in the country.

Think about it. Illegals in the US are so poor, so downtrodden, so underprivileged in their shadowy lives that they send tens of billions of dollars BACK to Mexico every year.

Every grocery store in Texas has a Western Union service, and the Spanish instructions are posted more prominently than the English ones.

Missy on September 23, 2011 at 4:29 PM

It is common knowledge that the Mexican government passes out pamphlets to their citizens on how to get to the US. This is also the reason why President Calderone called AZ residents racist when he gave a speech in the House earlier this year -even though Mexico has much stricter immigration laws than the US. Many illegals have to travel through Mexico to get to the US. They view this as others “stealing” from them. That’s why their laws are much stricter. Preventing illegals from entering would put a major damper on his economy.

This has been a problem for a long time.

ramrants on September 23, 2011 at 4:40 PM

AH_C on September 23, 2011 at 4:20 PM

100% agree
If nothing else, I was hoping Perry’s candidacy would give a voice to some practical, doable, reasonable solutions to the illegal immigration problem. Because he IS in the position to see the situation better than the others. But if he can’t articulate this things…

Think about it. Illegals in the US are so poor, so downtrodden, so underprivileged in their shadowy lives that they send tens of billions of dollars BACK to Mexico every year.

Missy on September 23, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Yes… so when Perry said one of the keys to the illegal problem was to address the poverty issue in Mexico, he was correct.

Mexico has a chance for the first time in 70 years to do something about the horrible poverty there because they finally voted out the PRI (socialist).

It is in our best interest to help them with this. But a lot of people, angered by the illegal situation (rightly so) are suggesting “solutions” out of their anger, not their reasoning, that will strain our relationship with Mexico.

And I cannot begin to tell you how angry I am about Fast and Furious.

itsacookbook on September 23, 2011 at 4:40 PM

President Calderone called AZ residents racist when he gave a speech in the House earlier this year

ramrants on September 23, 2011 at 4:40 PM

That was very upsetting… didn’t like that speech at all. Calderone (I call him something else in Spanish, kinda sounds like “Calderone” but has one less syllable) he is probably going to win re-election. We have got to be smarter in dealing with the Mexicans.

itsacookbook on September 23, 2011 at 4:46 PM

ramrants on September 23, 2011 at 4:40 PM
itsacookbook on September 23, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Great posts – thanks for the informative discussion.

Just curious, how does Mexico enforce its southern border? Do they have a fence? I realize that border is like 1/3 the length of our southern border, but I’m just wondering.

Missy on September 23, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Just curious, how does Mexico enforce its southern border? Do they have a fence? I realize that border is like 1/3 the length of our southern border, but I’m just wondering.

Missy on September 23, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Yup.

http://www.eutimes.net/2010/09/mexico-is-now-building-their-own-wall-on-border-with-guatemala/

sharrukin on September 23, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Yup.

http://www.eutimes.net/2010/09/mexico-is-now-building-their-own-wall-on-border-with-guatemala/

sharrukin on September 23, 2011 at 5:00 PM

This is for two reasons.

1) to keep those illegals from making their way to the US.
and
2) Mexico has a very small, but slowly emerging middle class. They currently have rich people and poor people. However, CAFTA has allowed Mexico to opportunity to create a middle class. It is very, very small.

ramrants on September 23, 2011 at 5:16 PM

1) to keep those illegals from making their way to the US.
and

ramrants on September 23, 2011 at 5:16 PM

So Mexico is very concerned about illegals entering the United States and that’s why they built this fence on their southern border?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPE7evFnwMg

sharrukin on September 23, 2011 at 5:21 PM

ramrants on September 23, 2011 at 5:16 PM

Gotcha. It’s not so important to me what the reasons are. I just want to know if they’re able to enforce their border effectively, and if so, how they’re able to do it.

Missy on September 23, 2011 at 5:22 PM

So Mexico is very concerned about illegals entering the United States and that’s why they built this fence on their southern border?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPE7evFnwMg

sharrukin on September 23, 2011 at 5:21 PM

If I understand ramrants’ comments, Mexico doesn’t want people from other countries south of them to get to the US. They want only their people to get to the US.

In other words they want Mexican nationals to have less job competition in the US from Guatemalans, Venezuelans, etc. That means more money sent back to Mexico.

Missy on September 23, 2011 at 5:26 PM

IlikedAUH2O on September 23, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Sorry for your loss and hope the sorrow gets lighter and lighter as time goes by.

bluefox on September 23, 2011 at 3:57 PM

I’m sorry, too. :-( Prayers going up for you and your family.

Mary in LA on September 23, 2011 at 5:28 PM

If I understand ramrants’ comments, Mexico doesn’t want people from other countries south of them to get to the US. They want only their people to get to the US.

In other words they want Mexican nationals to have less job competition in the US from Guatemalans, Venezuelans, etc. That means more money sent back to Mexico.

Missy on September 23, 2011 at 5:26 PM

If that is what he meant it does makes some sense. I suspect they are acting in their own self interest and we should act in ours.

sharrukin on September 23, 2011 at 5:32 PM

When there is a choice between A or B, and 100% of one party is for A, that is called a partisan political issue. Are you a Democrat? Do you like the job Janet Napolitano is doing on border security?

Really Right on September 23, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Do you still beat your wife..yes or no…are you still molesting the little girl next door, yes or no.
Are you really that stupid? Really?
You don’t think their are conservatives who don’t want a fence?
Let me ask you…how well did the fence do in Germany.
I think the fence is archaic, barbaric, and foolish…at least one that extends for 1200 miles, like the great wall of China.
I can see something, in fact drove by it every week, like the fence in San Ysidro, it worked, but took massive amount of men and resources to maintain and patrol.
Sorry, but E-verify (how many dems want that?), hard core fines for companies who hire illegals, and pull some troops out of Germany and man the border…and I mean man it like it should be manned. Yeah, barb wire, landmines (shock not killing), detection devices.
But a wall, no thanks, I don’t ever want the U.S. to be walled in…it’s so 1600′s…

right2bright on September 23, 2011 at 5:50 PM

I am from Texas, the DFW area,

Rebar on September 23, 2011 at 1:51 PM

You may live here.

And I’m in love with the idea of Texas, after living my whole life in New Jersey and Massachusetts.

Rebar on May 12, 2010 at 3:55 PM

You are not from here.

rukiddingme on September 23, 2011 at 5:50 PM

we should act in ours.

sharrukin on September 23, 2011 at 5:32 PM

Yes we should.

The problem is, the border of Texas and Mexico is actually the middle of the river (and in one area, a lake). So to build a fence along the actual border, we would need Mexico’s full cooperation.

The other option is to build the fence on our side of the river… which is being planned for in some parts. But the land owners already have lined up in court.

The fence is not the simple, easy, quick solution a lot of people think it is.

btw, the Mexican Consulate just recently announced that they are offering scholarships to students enrolled in New Mexico universities – and even illegals are eligible.

itsacookbook on September 23, 2011 at 5:52 PM

The fence is not the simple, easy, quick solution a lot of people think it is.

itsacookbook on September 23, 2011 at 5:52 PM

The Trans-Texas Corridor was doable, so I fail to see why a much shorter, cheaper, less elaborate fence isn’t.

sharrukin on September 23, 2011 at 5:57 PM

The Trans-Texas Corridor was doable, so I fail to see why a much shorter, cheaper, less elaborate fence isn’t.

sharrukin on September 23, 2011 at 5:57 PM

Yes a 4 foot high picket fence would be perfect…

right2bright on September 23, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Yes a 4 foot high picket fence would be perfect…

right2bright on September 23, 2011 at 6:08 PM

I doubt that. What’s your point?

Oh, a silly strawman argument.

sharrukin on September 23, 2011 at 6:10 PM

right2bright on September 23, 2011 at 5:50 PM

Now we get closer to the truth. A fence would be “barbaric”, among other things. Why is it barbaric? I’m sure Teddy Kennedy’s estate in Florida had a big fence or wall surrounding it, designed to keep people out. I don’t remember you complaining about that. Calling a fence “barbaric” is something that a liberal, a progressive, a Democrat would say. For you, a fence is not just a fence, but it is a symbol of evil!!!:(

Most Republicans, and most Tea Party people are for the fence, and ZERO Democrats are for it. Should I not find it weird that you are with the Democrats on this issue? Is this the only issue where you are with the Dems, or are there others?

Really Right on September 23, 2011 at 6:19 PM

If I understand ramrants’ comments, Mexico doesn’t want people from other countries south of them to get to the US. They want only their people to get to the US.

In other words they want Mexican nationals to have less job competition in the US from Guatemalans, Venezuelans, etc. That means more money sent back to Mexico.

Missy on September 23, 2011 at 5:26 PM

Of course, Mexico wants the only illegals in the USA to be Mexicans, it helps them push all the nonsense about the USA being stolen from Mexico. That increases the feelings of guilt in Americans which leaves them open to giving Mexicans freebies.

slickwillie2001 on September 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM

The Trans-Texas Corridor was doable, so I fail to see why a much shorter, cheaper, less elaborate fence isn’t.

sharrukin on September 23, 2011 at 5:57 PM

The TTC was doable on paper. As it turned out… it WASN’T doable in reality. People screamed about the “land grab”. And all sorts of land disputes popped up. It was a mess. And this was Texans v Texans. Would be much worse US v Mexico.

I’m not saying a fence isn’t doable; of course we have the technology to do it. I’m saying it won’t be as easy, quick, or as cheap as people think. It will be years before it is finished.

And there already is about 100 miles of fence and it isn’t working.

itsacookbook on September 23, 2011 at 6:30 PM

I’m not saying a fence isn’t doable; of course we have the technology to do it. I’m saying it won’t be as easy, quick, or as cheap as people think. It will be years before it is finished.

Well first you have to actually start building it.

And there already is about 100 miles of fence and it isn’t working.

itsacookbook on September 23, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Is that a real fence, or a virtual fence? Is it just a chainlink barrier or something designed to actually work? Why does it work with other nations borders but somehow it can’t be made to work along the southern border?

The Israeli fence is very substantial and only costs $2-3 million per mile which for the 1,200 miles would be $2.5 to 3.5 billion. The 4,000 mile TTC was going to cost $145 billion or more.

sharrukin on September 23, 2011 at 6:37 PM

John the Libertarian, are you on this thread? I posted a reply to you on the related Headlines thread, which seems to have scrolled off into oblivion. It’s here, if you’re interested.

Mary in LA on September 23, 2011 at 6:49 PM

sharrukin on September 23, 2011 at 6:37 PM

It’s a real fence but I don’t know how it is engineered is. I’ll see if I can find out.

Thanks for the honest and calm discussion. This is such an emotional issue, I really appreciate it when someone can discuss rather than accuse.

itsacookbook on September 23, 2011 at 6:54 PM

is

itsacookbook on September 23, 2011 at 6:55 PM

It’s a real fence but I don’t know how it is engineered is. I’ll see if I can find out.

It also makes a difference if those enforcing it actually are. We have seen before, like with that virtual fence, where they are trying to make it fail for political reasons.

Thanks for the honest and calm discussion. This is such an emotional issue, I really appreciate it when someone can discuss rather than accuse.

itsacookbook on September 23, 2011 at 6:54 PM

Hey, as long as you don’t call me heartless, or worried about peoples last names we’re golden.

sharrukin on September 23, 2011 at 7:10 PM

The problem is, the border of Texas and Mexico is actually the middle of the river (and in one area, a lake).

True. Thinking about the non-Texas part of the border, though, that seems feasible. If we fenced only the non-Texas part, that would be only a couple of hundred miles longer than Mexico’s southern border which they are apparently fencing.

I certainly don’t like the idea of a land grab. I just want people to discuss the matter seriously. I want someone to say “Yes – let’s look at a fence. Let’s look at all the available solutions.” When Perry starts talking about how a 32-foot fence means a 35-foot ladder sale, and then says that opponents of the DREAM Act are heartless, one can’t help but wonder whether he truly shares the concerns of the GOP electorate.

Missy on September 23, 2011 at 7:59 PM

Perry is politically dead meat. Regardless of the fence, he is overall pro illegal immigrant and anti-American citizen with his stated policies. He is worse than McCain, and will fair worse as a result. Next…

ray on September 23, 2011 at 8:09 PM

You’re wrong Perry, we all have the heart but what we don’t have is the money. Go check the stats on the illegals in California as far as their education goes and you will be shocked. There are more people being killed at our southern boarder than the wars we are in overseas. Forget the SS argument, there are more important things happening.

mixplix on September 23, 2011 at 8:39 PM

We can dam the Colorado river but can’t build a fence in a river…bet the Chinese could do it.

wheelgun on September 23, 2011 at 11:55 PM

I not against a fence but it is not neccesary.
Just a few raids per week sweeping up illegals and fining companies 10k per head would cause illegals to self deport.

Slowly stopping welfare benefits and easing the free loaders in to all the newly opened jobs would be the ticket.

esnap on September 24, 2011 at 11:18 AM

Perhaps Texans can explain why their leaders, with so much to lose from it, are incoherent on illegal immigration. This is a shame. I like Perry but with this position he has no chance nationally. Conservatives will not vote for another Bush immigration policy.

To his credit, he actually deals with the issue. All prior hopefuls have studiously avoided discussing the critical problem that it is. We can’t afford to pay for illegals and they need to solve their issues in their home countries.

virgo on September 24, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 9 10 11