Perry: It’s the federal government’s fault I had to implement in-state tuition

posted at 12:05 pm on September 29, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Rick Perry today employed a new argument for his slightly squishy immigration positions: The federal government’s failure to secure the borders forced his state to take up the issue of in-state tuition for illegal immigrant children in the first place.

“A lot of the problems that we face as governors would go away if they would secure the border,” Perry said on CNBC. “There has clearly been a failure of our federal government. That’s the reason that we’re having to deal with issues like in-state tuition.”

Perry’s three pillars for a secure border: Strategic fencing in metropolitan areas, more boots on the ground and aviation assets to assist border patrol agents.

“We need to have an immigration policy that’s thoughtful,” Perry said. ”We’re a rule of law country. We’ve got to have a secure border so that we know who’s coming in and we’re making the right decisions about who should come in and when they should come in and how long they should stay.”

Then, in a subject-concluding statement that sounded anything but weak, Perry promised to secure the border and “end illegal immigration” if elected president.

Perry’s points today make sense. States like Arizona and Alabama, after all, have used the same federal failure argument to justify their stringent anti-illegal immigration state laws. And in making his argument against the federal government, Perry didn’t completely abandon his earlier arguments that (a) in-state tuition for illegals is a state-level issue and (b) it primarily pertains to education policy. He just more effectively parlayed questions about his debatable in-state tuition policy into an opportunity to gin up support for his strong border security stance and his general understanding of the broader immigration issue.

Taken in tandem with yesterday’s walk-back of his earlier accusation that anyone who opposes in-state tuition for illegal immigrants is heartless, Perry’s comments today suggest he is buffing his positions in a hurry. No doubt he’ll perform better in the next debate.


Related Posts:

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 2 3 4

Vashta: Are you saying that there is no requirement to be a resident of Texas, or a citizen of the United States of America, to receive a Texan driving license?

Scott H on September 29, 2011 at 2:04 PM

I’m saying that anyone who has some cash and needs the ID to fake their way into a job can get one.

Vashta.Nerada on September 29, 2011 at 2:07 PM

It’s not rocket science …

A. The Feds won’t secure the border – illegals cross over.

B. There are now 20-25 MILLIONs of illegals here now – and Texas is very hard hit.

C. They’re not ever ALL going to be deported – sorry – they won’t. In fact, just as Krauthammer stated (and it’s Sarah Palin’s position too) – you’ll be surprised at what Americans will allow with the ones who are already here once the flood is stopped at the border.

D. Until that flood is stopped – they keep pouring in. Texans know that many of these people will become citizens eventually (and they will – sorry – but they will deal with it) … and they’d like these people to be productive – hence – Texas DREAM, in-state tuition … etc.

E. The DREAM act was passed by a VETO PROOF majority of the Texas Legislature. Even those “nasty” RINO Texas Republicans (who are MUCH worse than anything from Massachusetts, LOL) supported the Texas DREAM.

F. Hate Rick Perry for the in-state tuition? I expect you’ll be an equal opportunity hater then and hate Marco Rubio for supporting the same thing in Florida.

G. DREAM hasn’t destroyed the Texas economy – it’s booming. RomneyCare HAS destroyed the Massachusetts economy – so your priorities are a bit screwed up if you aren’t just as vehemently denouncing RomneyCare. But, as one of the news stories indicated yesterday – Conservatives are giving a “pass” to RomneyCare and seem to want to nominate the only other man in this nation besides Obama to have a socialist health care system named after him.

HondaV65 on September 29, 2011 at 2:08 PM

I’m saying that anyone who has some cash and needs the ID to fake their way into a job can get one.

Vashta.Nerada on September 29, 2011 at 2:07 PM

That’s pretty much true everywhere.

HondaV65 on September 29, 2011 at 2:10 PM

An Arizona DREAM Act was submitted in the state legislature in Feb 2011. Arizonans are skeptical, and may keep it from passing. But California, New Mexio, and Texas all have “DREAM Act” type in-state tuition for children of illegals.

J.E. Dyer on September 29, 2011 at 1:29 PM

As an Arizonan, I can promise you it will not pass here. Also, NM and CA have heavily Democrat state legislatures. So what is Perry’s excuse?

Kataklysmic on September 29, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Think what you’re saying. If what you say is true, the TX DREAM Act becomes effectively inactive after all the 2004 cohort finish college.

Missy on September 29, 2011 at 2:07 PM

As the act is written, it does indeed sunset after the 2004 cohort.

Vashta.Nerada on September 29, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Vashta: While I do not doubt you, I am mostly concerned with the legal ways of obtaining these items.

Of course, I do hope that we can hold the Executive Branch of the Texas State government accountable for any issues relating to the ease at which fake IDs or DLs can be obtained.

Honda: If Rubio does support a DREAM Act here in FL, he will never receive again my vote. Can you please cite a reference for this?

Can someone please show me what Governor Perry has done to make it harder for illegal immigrants to obtains jobs or services in his state?

Scott H on September 29, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Conservatives are giving a “pass” to RomneyCare and seem to want to nominate the only other man in this nation besides Obama to have a socialist health care system named after him.

HondaV65 on September 29, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Not this conservative. I want nothing to do with Romney.

I don’t contend that the DREAM Act is on par with RomneyCare. That doesn’t mean I have to like it, or applaud Rick Perry for supporting it.

And the fact that 25 million illegals cannot be deported does not mean that I have to support taxpayer-funded programs/subsidies that incentivize them to come.

So save your strawmen.

Missy on September 29, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Vashta: If the Act does sunset so soon… why was this not Perry’s explanation? “Look, we’re trying it for a while, and we’re going to study to see if the Act is doing what we thought it should do. We’re still evaluating it, etc. etc.”

Scott H on September 29, 2011 at 2:16 PM

As the act is written, it does indeed sunset after the 2004 cohort.

Vashta.Nerada on September 29, 2011 at 2:11 PM

That makes no sense. That means that it can’t be a 3-year residency requirement. In 2011 it would have a be a 7-year residency requirement; in 2012 an 8-year residency requirement, etc. etc.

Missy on September 29, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Perry has campaigned for closing the border for years.

cartooner on September 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM

He talks the talk, but he’s had 10 years to walk the walk, and the situation has only gotten worse. He has failed to do even simple common sense things like E-Verify. More, his comments in the debates that conservatives are heartless racists, shows if he gets the top job he still wouldn’t do what is needed to deport illegals and secure the border.

No spin in the world is going to paint Perry as tough on illegals, it simply will not work – because it’s a lie.

Rebar on September 29, 2011 at 1:50 PM

You’re right, saying he wants to “close the borders” and yet on the other side if his mouth he encourages it, by handing out “rewards” for crossing said border.

tencole on September 29, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Vashta: While I do not doubt you, I am mostly concerned with the legal ways of obtaining these items.

Scott H on September 29, 2011 at 2:12 PM

If you can get the ID, you can get a job, you can build a new identity, you can get credit cards and buy a house, etc. The point is that this issue is much tougher to fix than many realize.

Vashta.Nerada on September 29, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Okay, for the record, this is relevant section of the Texas Education Code (TEC):

Sec. 54.052. DETERMINATION OF RESIDENT STATUS. (a) Subject to the other applicable provisions of this subchapter governing the determination of resident status, the following persons are considered residents of this state for purposes of this title:
(1) a person who:
(A) established a domicile in this state not later than one year before the census date of the academic term in which the person is enrolled in an institution of higher education; and
(B) maintained that domicile continuously for the year preceding that census date;
(2) a dependent whose parent:
(A) established a domicile in this state not later than one year before the census date of the academic term in which the dependent is enrolled in an institution of higher education; and
(B) maintained that domicile continuously for the year preceding that census date; and
(3) a person who:
(A) graduated from a public or private high school in this state or received the equivalent of a high school diploma in this state; and
(B) maintained a residence continuously in this state for:
(i) the three years preceding the date of graduation or receipt of the diploma equivalent, as applicable; and
(ii) the year preceding the census date of the academic term in which the person is enrolled in an institution of higher education.
(b) For purposes of this section, the domicile of a dependent’s parent is presumed to be the domicile of the dependent unless the person establishes eligibility for resident status under Subsection (a)(3).

Scott H on September 29, 2011 at 2:20 PM

This isn’t about what I believe. Apparently, the Tx Leg believes it.

itsacookbook on September 29, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Not apparent. It’s more plausible that the TX legislature is Hispandering.

MeatHeadinCA on September 29, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Call it what you want, when 38% of your population is Hispanic, you don’t write them off. They aren’t a Democrat voting bloc either, but they could be and Texas could turn blue like California.

cartooner on September 29, 2011 at 2:21 PM

HondaV65 on September 29, 2011 at 2:08 PM

I don’t care who you quote or how you spin it….in state tuition for illegals is not right.

tencole on September 29, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Vashta: Then, if a state is serious about the illegal immigration problem, don’t you think that the relevant state governments should make it exceedingly difficult to forge these IDs?

Scott H on September 29, 2011 at 2:22 PM

cartooner: Ah… so you’re arguing that ‘electability’ is more important than values?

Scott H on September 29, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Vashta: Are you saying that there is no requirement to be a resident of Texas, or a citizen of the United States of America, to receive a Texan driving license?

Scott H on September 29, 2011 at 2:04 PM

You must prove citizenship, birth certificate, passport or DD214, social sec.#.

cartooner on September 29, 2011 at 2:26 PM

I tell you what. when Mexico starts offing in state tuition to American citizens let me know. then maybe we can talk.

unseen on September 29, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Honda: If Rubio does support a DREAM Act here in FL, he will never receive again my vote. Can you please cite a reference for this?

Scott H on September 29, 2011 at 2:12 PM

I’d like to see that also…cuz if it’s true, that would just break my heart.

tencole on September 29, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Talismen: You said the following.

What strikes me the most about this issue is that, most of us can trace our ancestry back to a long lost family member (or members), who came to this country, basically illegaly (or, what would be considered illegal today, but not back then), who WERE given a chance…Who WERE sometimes given money, or food, or clothing, or what-have-you, when they were starting out. Where would this country be without all those instances of illegal immigration, back in the day?

In this quote, you present the argument that many legal immigrations were actually illegal, by present law. And since you persist in referring to these legal immigrations as illegal, I can only surmise that you think that the current immigration laws are overly restrictive.

You cannot judge prior legal immigrations by current law, and you cannot judge current illegal immigrations by prior law. Your argument does not hold.

I’ll point out also that in the areas of American history that saw the most immigration (late 1800s, if I’m not mistaken), if people did receive assistance upon arriving here, they did overwhelmingly through private charities, not by the largesse of taxpayer funds.

Scott H on September 29, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Focus…I was speaking to immigration BACK THEN. Not now. I spoke to that issue, because (IMO) from time to time, we should look to history to show us how things were handled then, and consider how things have changed since those times, when dealing with the same issue. Illegal immigration has different parameters NOW. Many who emmigrated BACK THEN would be considered “illegals” NOW. THAT is what I was saying. Apprently I was crytic…or something.

You’ve assumed…for whatever reason…that I believe the current laws are too restrictive. I never said anything of the sort. I think the laws are fine…and need to be ENFORCED, FULLY.

As for people who came here, who WERE given a chance…Even IF that chance came to them by charity or government, it makes no difference, if one wishes to KEEP IN CONTEXT with what I’m trying to say….They were given that chance.

I agree that federally collected tax payer funds should not be used in assisting illegals. But, I stand by state’s rights…Whether I like it or not, Texas has a right to do as they please, when it comes to this issue. I also agree that Arizona has a right to do as they please, when it comes to taking care of their illegal immigration problem.

Talismen on September 29, 2011 at 2:28 PM

cartooner: Ah… so you’re arguing that ‘electability’ is more important than values?

Scott H on September 29, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Touche.
That philosophy is why our beloved country is in the state it’s in. :(

tencole on September 29, 2011 at 2:30 PM

we should look to history to show us how things were handled then

Talismen on September 29, 2011 at 2:28 PM

I like how Ike handled things back then.

Rebar on September 29, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Perry, as a governor, has no powers to deport anyone only incarcerate illegals paid for by the citizens of Texas.

smfoushee on September 29, 2011 at 12:09 PM

This argument, stated by so many, is getting so tiresome.

Liberals usually state, “We can’t deport 12 million illegals, THEREFORE we must give them citizenship.” BS. Attrition through enforcement works. Watch this short video.

Anyone discussing illegal immigration should get educated on attrition through enforcement. Here is your first lesson. And here.

Perry and TX don’t have to deport – they just have to stop the REWARDS!!

There are three things you can do about criminal activity: ignore it, penalize it (or at least remove the incentives), or REWARD it.

The Feds ignore it and also reward it by allowing illegal sanctuary cities, checking accounts, mortgages, drivers licenses, etc.

Some states are starting to remove incentives – using E-Verify to remove the incentives of jobs, etc.

And some states, like Texas, give REWARDS to illegal aliens.

Perry and the misguided legislature didn’t have to give an incentive to illegal aliens, they could have removed incentives of jobs by using E-Verify, but Perry is dead set against it.

Note: a strong E-Verify bill just passed out of the House committee with all Rep. voting for it. I guess Perry would have voted no.

If you think giving INCENTIVES to criminals stops future crime (more illegals entering) why not try that same strategy with burglars in YOUR neighborhood, by rewarding them with their ill-gotten goods.

And when Texas makes a “state” decision to aid and abet illegal aliens, does Texas promise to keep them in Texas, and not let them wander around the country?

fred5678 on September 29, 2011 at 2:45 PM

If an illegal alien breaks the law, is it legal?

Danny on September 29, 2011 at 2:47 PM

If an illegal alien breaks the law, is it legal?

Danny on September 29, 2011 at 2:47 PM

We are officially living in Wonderland.

RDE2010 on September 29, 2011 at 2:57 PM

“No doubt he’ll perform better in the next debate.”

No doubt…

Seven Percent Solution on September 29, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Whatever Rick. You are dead to me.

exdeadhead on September 29, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Missy on September 29, 2011 at 2:17 PM

I may be conflating two different bills, but I’m sure that is what I read. I am looking for a link.

Vashta.Nerada on September 29, 2011 at 3:13 PM

But, there HAS TO BE a comfortable middle-ground when it comes to his in-state-tuition-for-illegals stance…And I think that middle-ground will be found within the whole states-rights arena.

I proudly identify with the Tea Party movement, but, I’ll tell ya’…If they are going to champion a states-rights candidate, this is the other side of that coin that they’ll have to get comfortable with.

Talismen on September 29, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Comfortable? COMFORTABLE???

There is no comfort for millions of unemployed American citizens when our state and federal governments provide incentives and rewards for illegal behavior.

There is no middle ground here — either you reward them, and provide incentives for future illegal behavior, or you stop rewarding it. No middle ground.

There is no other area of human activity, other than illegal immigration, in which so many misguided people think that rewarding bad behavior is a step toward eliminating that same behavior.

Do we give speeders free toll passes? Do we reward burglars with their stolen jewels?

Common sense, respect for the law, and human nature all teach that using ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT is the long-term solution.

Please get educated. Here. And here.

In-state tuition and other similar incentives all assume that there is nothing we can do except deport millions of illegals. Nonsense. LISTEN to this illegal alien tell you how attrition works.

fred5678 on September 29, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Rebar on September 29, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Amazing, isn’t it? Enforcing the laws on the books…What a novel idea! :-D

Aside from the use of the term “wetback”…THAT is a perfect example of a country taking its border security seriously.

Talismen on September 29, 2011 at 3:19 PM

“Do we reward burglars with their stolen jewels?”
fred5678 on September 29, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Yes, with a Nobel Peace prize, book deals, tens of thousands of $ in speaking fees, and a Presidential library.

OK, so maybe not always with a Nobel Peace prize.
(sarc)

Danny on September 29, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Call it what you want, when 38% of your population is Hispanic, you don’t write them off. They aren’t a Democrat voting bloc either, but they could be and Texas could turn blue like California.

cartooner on September 29, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Who said anything about writing them off? BTW, how much of the population is liberal?

Now, back to the point I was trying to make, do you believe that by living in the state of TX for 1 year, one sets-off the expense the state of TX covers by charging one in-state tuition?

MeatHeadinCA on September 29, 2011 at 3:23 PM

If an illegal alien breaks the law, is it legal?

Danny on September 29, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Humberto Leal Garcia comes to mind.

MeatHeadinCA on September 29, 2011 at 3:25 PM

Comfortable? COMFORTABLE???

There is no comfort for millions of unemployed American citizens when our state and federal governments provide incentives and rewards for illegal behavior.

There is no middle ground here — either you reward them, and provide incentives for future illegal behavior, or you stop rewarding it. No middle ground.

There is no other area of human activity, other than illegal immigration, in which so many misguided people think that rewarding bad behavior is a step toward eliminating that same behavior.

Do we give speeders free toll passes? Do we reward burglars with their stolen jewels?

Common sense, respect for the law, and human nature all teach that using ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT is the long-term solution.

Please get educated. Here. And here.

In-state tuition and other similar incentives all assume that there is nothing we can do except deport millions of illegals. Nonsense. LISTEN to this illegal alien tell you how attrition works.

fred5678 on September 29, 2011 at 3:15 PM

First of all…let ME educate you:

This last February, I was let go from my job of 13.5 years, in the telecom industry here in Iowa. Do NOT try to tell me how bad it is out there, because I know, first hand. It is, quite frankly, UGLY.

That “middle-ground” I apprently, again, cryptically spoke of was state’s rights. To be specific…ANYONE who says they are a champion of state’s rights CANNOT say they do not understand Perry’s stance on this, without being intellectually dishonest at best. Either one is FOR state’s rights, or against them. Period.

I’ve been active (online) with NumbersUSA for a few years now. A link to that which I already know about, does NOT help me. Their URL isn’t member-exclusive. I have my own account there.

When put into proper perspective, in-state tuition in Texas, when compared to the many perks states like California has for illegals, is much more strict and harder to come-by. Those are the facts.

If you think I don’t already know that illegals “game” the system, think again. I’m an Iowan…We have illegals all over the place here, working at the meat-packing plants and other same-type places.

Talismen on September 29, 2011 at 3:30 PM

It is interesting that as Perry is “flip-flopping” on his wording for in-state tuition that Tina k is giving him props saying he will be a better debater next go around…yet the one that gets accused of Flipping to a conservative message is the one that gets railed on!

Also Perry supporters explain to me how you are okay with Perry assisting illegals (ILLEGALS!) in Texas and costing Texans millions of dollars yet Romney attempted to solve a State problem costing his State millions of dollars and these were American citizens he was trying to help and HE is the socialist? Romney’s reasoning and it makes sense is that the State was paying these millions every year on people who were getting a free ride so why not allow them to contribute to their care vice riding on the taxpayers dime…as the illegals are doing in TX and in my State of AZ.

btw someone mentioned earlier about the DREAM Act in CA, NM, AZ…and like the other poster said that will never pass in AZ. Even the LEGAL green card citizens in AZ do NOT like the illegals sneaking across our border.

g2825m on September 29, 2011 at 3:50 PM

I think of illegals as those people that as you are standing in line at the store, bank, DMV, etc… and you have been waiting in line for the next window to open after 30 minutes and someone comes and steps in front of you and says “You don’t mind do you, I’m kinda in a hurry?”

YEAH, I mind! This is why illegals should not have any rights as they broke the law with their very FIRST act coming into our country and I see it daily living in AZ.

Walk in to an Emergency room here in AZ with your child to get looked at for a serious injury or ailment and you have to sit and wait for an hour and half because 20 other people in the room are there illegally and were there before you…besides because many do not have insurance the Emergency Room is THEIR Doctor…and not for emergencies.

g2825m on September 29, 2011 at 4:00 PM

btw someone mentioned earlier about the DREAM Act in CA, NM, AZ…and like the other poster said that will never pass in AZ. Even the LEGAL green card citizens in AZ do NOT like the illegals sneaking across our border.

g2825m on September 29, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Yes, the majority of legal immigrants have voted in favor of the ballot propositions cracking down on illegals.

JannyMae on September 29, 2011 at 4:08 PM

So Perry is taking a page from Obama and blaming other people for his actions instead of taking responsibility. the more I see of Perry the less I like.

unseen on September 29, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Is it Perry’s fault that the Feds don’t enforce the border? Is it Perry’s fault that the Supreme Court required illegals to be educated?

One final question. Do you believe Romney will be more conservative on this issue or any other issue than Perry?

Bill C on September 29, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Rick Perry: No, I didn’t. Honest… I ran out of gas. I… I had a flat tire. I didn’t have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn’t come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts! IT WASN’T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!

sharrukin on September 29, 2011 at 4:11 PM

When put into proper perspective, in-state tuition in Texas, when compared to the many perks states like California has for illegals, is much more strict and harder to come-by. Those are the facts.

Talismen on September 29, 2011 at 3:30 PM

In proper perspective, ANY inducement for more illegal activity is a magnet for illegal aliens. That’s a fact. A perk is a perk, no matter which candidate or which state does it. “Strict” rewards are still rewards.

And if “states rights” allows a state to induce foreign invaders to cross its own international border, does that state then have a duty to keep those invaders within THEIR OWN state boundaries, instead of letting them wander around the country and invade the states that don’t choose to give rewards to illegal aliens?

And if employers follow the law, or E-Verify is used, how will these illegal alien college graduates ever get a job? The college slot gets wasted, and a US citizen gets screwed.

fred5678 on September 29, 2011 at 4:12 PM

Let’s face it — the Texas economy that he’s so proud of depends on a ready, steady source of very cheap labor provided by illegals.

OnlyOrange on September 29, 2011 at 1:09 PM

So what do you suppose California’s problem is?

anuts on September 29, 2011 at 4:14 PM

So what do you suppose California’s problem is?

anuts on September 29, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Neo-Marxist Democrats and the five remaining establishment Republicans.

Danny on September 29, 2011 at 4:18 PM

For those that think that Republicans must cater to Hispanics because they are all in favor of illegal immigration, check this poll.

40% of Hispanics want the law enforced, with no rewards of amnesty. And check the percent of blacks — after all, who gets economically hurt by the latest wave of illegal workers?

fred5678 on September 29, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Why a DREAM Act but no Three Strikes and You’re Out Act for businesses hiring illegals? One that puts everyone in the hiring chain in a company from CEO down to the interviewers on the spot…

First time is a modest fine and a couple of weeks in stripe city.

Second time is a major fine and a couple of months in stripe city.

Third time the company is disbanded, sold at auction never to come back and all in the hiring chain get a nice 5 year sentence for their disregard of the law.

Everyone understands 3 Strikes as a concept and it gives a company a chance to understand that they must mend their ways. A minor warning, a major warning and then you are a major scofflaw that needs to be ended as a corporate entity.

Why not 3 Strikes before any discussion of any DREAM Act?

Or do we like companies serving as magnets for illegals and getting away with a wrist slap? If you want to get serious then change this around to the magnets, not the poor people who are being enticed to come because we can’t figure out that enforcing the law of the land is a reqirement for having a Nation. Start on the enforcement end, put major sanctions on at the end and companies will either reform or go away and open up space for new market entrants. I bet you could even get a number of Lefties on board with this due to their disgust with companies… or force them to shut up when you offer a viable alternative to pipe dreams.

ajacksonian on September 29, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Rick, I don’t give a tinker’s damn about your tuition policy in TX. Tell us how you are going to fix this ailing country of ours!

Why should I vote for you? TELL ME!!

MJBrutus on September 29, 2011 at 4:40 PM

ajacksonian on September 29, 2011 at 4:39 PM

How about reporting Obama’s illegal alien uncle’s employer, Conti’s Liquor, who just re-hired him after he left the courtroom!! I did. And the ICE agent asked me for the address, so I put him on hold while I did a quick search:

409 Concord Street
Framingham, MA 01702-6448

(508) 875-4454

ICE Hotline: 1-866-DHS-2-ICE

Maybe if a few thousand calls come in, ICE will raid the liquor store and boot his sorry a$$ out of work.

Michelle’s story on it.

fred5678 on September 29, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Why should I vote for you? TELL ME!!

MJBrutus on September 29, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Rick Perry: “(Well, MJBrutus, this is why you should vote for me.) Ice cream. That is cheap. Fact. And then I suspended Marcia off this bridge. And took a virgin heifer nightridin’ for a while. We never got a dead spirit. We hated it though. It’s disgusting!”

Sorry. I just couldn’t help but kick that horse again (and again, and again), because, well, it’s funny! & you specifically asked…

Danny on September 29, 2011 at 5:03 PM

One final question. Do you believe Romney will be more conservative on this issue or any other issue than Perry?

Bill C on September 29, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Yes, Bill C.

Romney already proved it when they (MA) came to him with a similar bill and he vetoed it! So he has backed it up and has stated his position on illegal immigration since 2007 when he began to run for Pres and showed it by his actions as Gov prior to that…

Romney is and will be a strong President for us. Check out his website and see his stances on ALL the issues. One other thing Romney is THE only one I see laying out his policies, plans, ideas, in detail on foreign policy, the economy, military, role of gov’t, etc…Where are all the others plans IN DETAIL?

I do like Cain but where are his plans? If you are running for the most powerful position on Earth then you better have some plans on ALL of the above I mentioned and frankly that is what somewhat hurt Palin last go around (who I supported so don’t go all ballistic on me) was she was not deep enough in many areas as I see in Cain and even Perry.

g2825m on September 29, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Walk in to an Emergency room here in AZ with your child to get looked at for a serious injury or ailment and you have to sit and wait for an hour and half because 20 other people in the room are there illegally and were there before you…besides because many do not have insurance the Emergency Room is THEIR Doctor…and not for emergencies.
g2825m on September 29, 2011 at 4:00 PM

And the kicker is that you get the privilege of paying for their “free” medical care, too.

whatcat on September 29, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Is it Perry’s fault that the Supreme Court required illegals to be educated?

One final question. Do you believe Romney will be more conservative on this issue or any other issue than Perry?

Bill C on September 29, 2011 at 4:10 PM

This is dishonest. There is no legal requirement for any state to subsidize college educations for illegals. None. States that do, do so because they have all too many hispandering politicians.

And Romney is to the right of Perry on illegals, which only shows how wrong Perry is on the issue.

Rebar on September 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Walk in to an Emergency room here in AZ with your child to get looked at for a serious injury or ailment and you have to sit and wait for an hour and half because 20 other people in the room are there illegally and were there before you…besides because many do not have insurance the Emergency Room is THEIR Doctor…and not for emergencies.
g2825m on September 29, 2011 at 4:00 PM

And the kicker is that you get the privilege of paying for their “free” medical care, too.

whatcat on September 29, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Similarly, living in Massachusetts under Romneycare, my anecdotal evidence is that emergency rooms have now become “primary care clinics” for kid’s sniffles, fevers and flus…

OnlyOrange on September 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM

whatcat on September 29, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Amen! Whatcat

That is a true story I related above…talk about frustrating and pi**ed off that these guys were in front of you who legally did not belong in our country.

Did you see the other day how one of the Mexican Drug cartels wife came into the States to have her baby and went back to Mexico! That is another law (14th Amendment) that needs to be amended.

g2825m on September 29, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Walk in to an Emergency room here in AZ with your child to get looked at for a serious injury or ailment and you have to sit and wait for an hour and half because 20 other people in the room are there illegally and were there before you…besides because many do not have insurance the Emergency Room is THEIR Doctor…and not for emergencies.
g2825m on September 29, 2011 at 4:00 PM

And the kicker is that you get the privilege of paying for their “free” medical care, too.

whatcat on September 29, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Similarly, living in Massachusetts under Romneycare, my anecdotal evidence is that emergency rooms have now become “primary care clinics” for kid’s sniffles, fevers and flus…

OnlyOrange on September 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM

I think the core point here is more in regard to illegals being eligible for all manner of freebies, including medical care, with Americans being left to pick up the tab.

whatcat on September 29, 2011 at 5:17 PM

g2825m on September 29, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Chinese are doing that as well. They take a flight to California, spend a couple of weeks and drop the baby. Kind of an insurance policy for the future in case China falls apart.

slickwillie2001 on September 29, 2011 at 5:18 PM

That is another law (14th Amendment) that needs to be amended.

g2825m on September 29, 2011 at 5:14 PM

++++++

itsacookbook on September 29, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Similarly, living in Massachusetts under Romneycare, my anecdotal evidence is that emergency rooms have now become “primary care clinics” for kid’s sniffles, fevers and flus…

OnlyOrange on September 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM

To be fair, this is happening all over the country. In many instances it’s insured families (sometimes quite well-to-do) who have decided it’s worth the $100 emergency co-pay to get urgent treatment and not have to fight for a pediatrician appointment on Monday morning.

Missy on September 29, 2011 at 5:21 PM

To be fair, this is happening all over the country. In many instances it’s insured families (sometimes quite well-to-do) who have decided it’s worth the $100 emergency co-pay to get urgent treatment and not have to fight for a pediatrician appointment on Monday morning.

Missy on September 29, 2011 at 5:21 PM

Missy I understand what you’re saying but come to any of the Phoenix-Tucson area hospitals and try to get in for YOUR emergency while several others that you know do not belong in our country are in front of you. How do you know they do not belong legally…listen to them at the Payment counter try to explain why they do not have an insurance card, SS card, no drivers license, etc etc etc…

and as Whatcat stated and others WE are paying for their care!

g2825m on September 29, 2011 at 5:33 PM

but then again I don’t want to come across as “heartless”…I should be happy I’m broke helping others with my taxes!

g2825m on September 29, 2011 at 5:34 PM

Missy I understand what you’re saying but come to any of the Phoenix-Tucson area hospitals and try to get in for YOUR emergency while several others that you know do not belong in our country are in front of you. How do you know they do not belong legally…listen to them at the Payment counter try to explain why they do not have an insurance card, SS card, no drivers license, etc etc etc…
and as Whatcat stated and others WE are paying for their care!
g2825m on September 29, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Same up north. Tons of illegals getting medical care in government clinics/hospitals – so many, in fact, that in most such facilities English is pretty much a second language.

whatcat on September 29, 2011 at 5:42 PM

To be fair, this is happening all over the country. In many instances it’s insured families (sometimes quite well-to-do) who have decided it’s worth the $100 emergency co-pay to get urgent treatment and not have to fight for a pediatrician appointment on Monday morning.

Missy on September 29, 2011 at 5:21 PM

But, they don’t have to pay that kind of co-pay here… I do, because I’m insured. Those on MassHealth (i.e. Romneycare) do not…

OnlyOrange on September 29, 2011 at 5:46 PM

and as Whatcat stated and others WE are paying for their care!
g2825m on September 29, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Rick Perry tried to change that in Texas by allowing cross border purchasing of medical insurance. Mexicans would have been able to buy American Insurance and Americans would have been able to buy Mexican insurance.

If Perry’s plan would have passed – those illegals could have bought insurance and you wouldn’t be paying for their healthcare.

But the fact is – most Conservatives are content to take a hard line policy on illegals. It amounts to …

“NO – I will not pay for their medical care!”

“No – I will not allow illegals to purchase health care insurance so that I don’t have to pay for their medical care!”

So basically – if you’re illegal – and you get into an accident – well then just f***er! Because we’re not paying your doctor bills and we’re not going to allow you to pay for insurance!

What the hell kind of position is that?

I mean – okay – you want to see lawbreakers die – that’s fine I suppose – hard, but at least the guy is guilty of something.

But I have no clue what a two-year mexican child brought over the border by her parents and guilty of no crime is supposed to do if she needs medical help.

And neither do “purely purest of the purely pure” conservatives. They want every one of the 25 million deported – but no real plan on how to do that. And no plan on what to do with the guys that you can’t deport.

At least Rick Perry and Texas Republicans are attempting to find a solution here – while everyone else pounds the table.

LOL

HondaV65 on September 29, 2011 at 5:54 PM

But, they don’t have to pay that kind of co-pay here… I do, because I’m insured. Those on MassHealth (i.e. Romneycare) do not…

OnlyOrange on September 29, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Oh … nice to see that some have caught on to the fact that Romney gave free healthcare to illegals in RomneyCare.

I was wondering when someone would take a break from demonizing Rick Perry because he makes illegals pay in-state tuition to notice that.

HondaV65 on September 29, 2011 at 5:57 PM

Perry’s comments today suggest he is buffing his positions in a hurry.

It’s called deceiving and dissembling, not “buffing”.

No doubt he’ll perform better in the next debate.

If so, he will have to break a real pattern of getting even worse in each one.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on September 29, 2011 at 6:05 PM

Taken in tandem with yesterday’s walk-back of his earlier accusation that anyone who opposes in-state tuition for illegal immigrants is heartless

Baloney. Something that so well reveals what a person is can not be taken back, let alone so soon.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on September 29, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Perry has no credibility left. He is as the Emperor with no clothes now. Just another Obama.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on September 29, 2011 at 6:10 PM

They want every one of the 25 million deported – but no real plan on how to do that.

HondaV65 on September 29, 2011 at 5:54 PM

You’re being dishonest.

Plenty of folks have given perfectly good and reasonable ways to get illegals out of the country.

You are not serving your candidate by lying and mocking the very legitimate concerns of conservatives. In that way, you’re very much like Rick Perry.

I stated weeks ago Perry would have to get in front of this issue, or he’d flame out. He didn’t, he doubled down on it and insulted the very base he needs to win.

His flameout is deserved, and entirely his own fault.

Rebar on September 29, 2011 at 6:19 PM

E. The DREAM act was passed by a VETO PROOF majority of the Texas Legislature. Even those “nasty” RINO Texas Republicans (who are MUCH worse than anything from Massachusetts, LOL) supported the Texas DREAM. HondaV65 on September 29, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Funny, Romney’s healthcare plan was exceptionally good until the Massachusetts legislature took a whack at it and overrode his veto several times. I don’t see any Perry fans giving him that benefit of the doubt.

scotash on September 29, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Bull. He did not have to give away scholarships to the children of illegals. And we are not heartless for disagreeing.
He’s toast.

kingsjester on September 29, 2011 at 6:31 PM

One final question. Do you believe Romney will be more conservative on this issue or any other issue than Perry?

Bill C on September 29, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Yes, I do. You haven’t been listening to Romney for the last 4 years if you can’t tell otherwise.

scotash on September 29, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Funny thing is that Cain met with the head of Muslim Brotherhood this summer at the ADAMS Center in Virginia in his kiss and make up with the muzzies, now he is a contender.

How do Cainiacs reconcile this? Otherwise I do like Cain, never supported him, but do like him.

Kermit on September 29, 2011 at 6:44 PM

kingsjester on September 29, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Scholarships?

Kermit on September 29, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Hell if I know.

Is this really your argument for why Perry is right on this issue? Because the Lege voted for it?

Missy on September 29, 2011 at 1:01 PM

No. My point is that this was a popular bill 10 years ago. No one had a problem with it when it passed. It never would have received 100% yes votes in the Senate if it wasn’t. But now, all of the sudden it is the worst piece of legislation in the history of legislation.

ramrants on September 29, 2011 at 6:46 PM

But the fact is – most Conservatives are content to take a hard line policy on illegals. It amounts to …
“NO – I will not pay for their medical care!”
HondaV65 on September 29, 2011 at 5:54 PM

Actually, it’s like the Obama Soros-type Billionares who complain that they are not giving the government enough money in taxes. There’s nothing stopping them from giving all their money to the US Government, since 1843 it’s been quite easy to do so.

For you, Perry and anyone else who wants to throw money at illegals, that’s fine – just make it your own money. Leave other, law abiding Americans out of it. When you put all your money where your mouth is then you can complain about illegals not getting enough freebies. But just don’t expect Americans to fund your moocher-financing follies.

whatcat on September 29, 2011 at 6:49 PM

I really liked him for a few hours. It’s not happening for me anymore.

I think Obama would rip him to shreds in a debate. Newt is sounding better and better.
I could see a Newt/Cain or Cain/Newt thing going on.

JellyToast on September 29, 2011 at 7:06 PM

Scholarships?

Kermit on September 29, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Well, in 2001, Governor Rick Perry signed Texas House Bill 1403 into law. This law has become known as the Texas Dream Act:

This bill states that non-citizens (illegal immigrants) may be able to apply for state financial aid if they have:

Lived in Texas for three years, at least part of the time with a parent or court-appointed legal guardian

Graduated from a Texas high school (or received a GED)

Not attended an institution of higher education before fall 2001

Signed an affidavit stating they will apply for permanent residency as soon as they are eligible.

kingsjester on September 29, 2011 at 7:09 PM

The GOP will betray you

True_King on September 29, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Sorry, guys.

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2011/09/on-immigrant-tuition-marco-rubio-sounds-like-a-rick-perry-man.html

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 4:00 PM

*sigh*…..another bubble busted.

tencole on September 29, 2011 at 7:17 PM

Is it Perry’s fault that the Feds don’t enforce the border? Is it Perry’s fault that the Supreme Court required illegals to be educated?

One final question. Do you believe Romney will be more conservative on this issue or any other issue than Perry?

Bill C on September 29, 2011 at 4:10 PM

No, of course it’s not “his fault”.

Now Perry rewarding illegal activity and calling people that think such activity should not be rewarded as heartless….yea, that IS “his fault”

tencole on September 29, 2011 at 7:21 PM

When put into proper perspective, in-state tuition in Texas, when compared to the many perks states like California has for illegals, is much more strict and harder to come-by. Those are the facts.

Talismen on September 29, 2011 at 3:30 PM

Still doesn’t make it right.

tencole on September 29, 2011 at 7:23 PM

If Perry’s plan would have passed – those illegals could have bought insurance and you wouldn’t be paying for their healthcare.

HondaV65 on September 29, 2011 at 5:54 PM

Are you serious?!? Illegals don’t buy any insurance in their own country, let alone buy this stuff.

tencole on September 29, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Rick Perry: “My wife prodded me to enter presidential race.”

haner on September 29, 2011 at 7:36 PM

So Perry is saying ” it’s Bush’s fault”, do I have that right? Don’t tell Obama, he might try blameing Bush too!

bigmike on September 29, 2011 at 7:38 PM

If Perry’s plan would have passed – those illegals could have bought insurance and you wouldn’t be paying for their healthcare.

HondaV65 on September 29, 2011 at 5:54 PM

Are you serious?!? Illegals don’t buy any insurance in their own country, let alone buy this stuff.

tencole on September 29, 2011 at 7:29 PM

When they are gifted with free (to them) world-class healthcare in the US by the likes of Perry, along with all the other freebies, why would they even bother?

whatcat on September 29, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Sorry, guys.

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2011/09/on-immigrant-tuition-marco-rubio-sounds-like-a-rick-perry-man.html

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 4:00 PM

*sigh*…..another bubble busted.

tencole on September 29, 2011 at 7:17 PM

So after enthusiastically professing your admiration and support for Marco Rubio (and rightly so!) because of his steadfast commitment to conservatism and his ability to effectively communicate the conservative message, you’re throwing him under the bus too?

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 8:35 PM

So after enthusiastically professing your admiration and support for Marco Rubio (and rightly so!) because of his steadfast commitment to conservatism and his ability to effectively communicate the conservative message, you’re throwing him under the bus too?

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Principles matter, not men.

You wanted to use Rubio to prove your point that its conservative. It doesn’t work that way. If the most conservative guy in the world says From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs he’s not a conservative anymore. Rubio is wrong if he supports it, and if Ronald Reagan supported it, he would be wrong too.

sharrukin on September 29, 2011 at 8:46 PM

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Being soft on illegals is a dealkiller.

It’s more than just throwing away billions in taxpayers money, it’s more than them taking jobs – the logical conclusion of this is: amnesty.

And with amnesty comes the end of the GOP, the end of the republic, the final victory of progressivism.

If you are wrong on illegals, you are wrong for America.

Period.

Rebar on September 29, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Rick Perry today employed a new argument for his slightly squishy immigration positions: The federal government’s failure to secure the borders forced his state to take up the issue of in-state tuition for illegal immigrant children in the first place.

I am joining this discussion quite late.

My first read of this article – first sentence – and there is an error so glaring that I am surprised no one mentioned it.

Tina, I understand you might have soured on Perry and might be jumping unto the “Herb” Cain train or even Romney, but that statement of yours is totally incorrect.

Perry has been making this same argument right from the day this was brought up. He said it many times at the debate that Texas had to take this step because of the lack of action from the Feds in dealing with the illegal immigration problem.

Some of us Perry supporters have been making the same argument on this forum. So why call it new and follow it up by saying he has “squishy” positions on illegal immigration.

What makes Perry “squishy” on illegal immigration? Because he says he doesn’t agree that building a fence along the entire Mexican border is the most effective way of dealing with the problem?

Hope you guys have fun with Romney building it for you. (Hint: It will die in Congress).

TheRightMan on September 29, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Moreso, the Romneybots jubilating thinking the Perry campaign is over: it’s NOT over by a long shot!

Perry has more than enough time to explain his stances, which have been misrepresented by Romney et al. And he is on track doing that as can be seen from his media rounds.

TheRightMan on September 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM

Principles matter, not men.

You wanted to use Rubio to prove your point that its conservative. It doesn’t work that way. If the most conservative guy in the world says From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs he’s not a conservative anymore. Rubio is wrong if he supports it, and if Ronald Reagan supported it, he would be wrong too.

sharrukin on September 29, 2011 at 8:46 PM

Well, since I don’t consider you to be conservative, I don’t accept your definition of conservatism at the outset. Marco Rubio is conservative on taxes, limited government, entrepreneurship, the free market, regulation, private property, and many other principles. But because you think he’s wrong on one issue, you won’t support him. That’s not conservative. That makes you a single issue voter.

Being soft on illegals is a dealkiller.

It’s more than just throwing away billions in taxpayers money, it’s more than them taking jobs – the logical conclusion of this is: amnesty.

And with amnesty comes the end of the GOP, the end of the republic, the final victory of progressivism.

If you are wrong on illegals, you are wrong for America.

Period.

Rebar on September 29, 2011 at 8:50 PM

So, who died and left you dictator? That comment right there disqualifies you as conservative. The conservative philosophy doesn’t include the issuance of diktats that others are required to follow in lockstep.

You and sharrukin are actually single issue voters. Now, there’s nothing wrong with being a single issue voter; there are lots of them out there. But to call yourself conservative would be incorrect.

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 9:46 PM

Sharrukin and Rebar: To learn more about the modern American conservative movement, I suggest you read this.

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 9:54 PM

Well, since I don’t consider you to be conservative, I don’t accept your definition of conservatism at the outset.

You haven’t got the slightest idea what my definition of conservatism is. What you know and the only thing that matters to you is that I am unimpressed with your candidate Perry.

Marco Rubio is conservative on taxes, limited government, entrepreneurship, the free market, regulation, private property, and many other principles. But because you think he’s wrong on one issue, you won’t support him.

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 9:46 PM

Marco Rubio isn’t running for president. Your dream boat Perry is. Its Perry’s record that is the problem not Rubio’s. That you are attempting to use Rubio’s record to magically bolster Perry somehow, shows how utterly lacking Perry is.

I disagree with Rubio on one issue and to you thanks translates to not supporting him for… something? What it really means is that I disagree with him on this issue. Thats it.

How you gallop off into the sunset holding hands with Perry gabbling on about defending free markets and conservatism is a logic gap that makes sense only in your own mind.

sharrukin on September 29, 2011 at 10:05 PM

That comment right there disqualifies you as conservative.

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 9:46 PM

So, you can support the thing – amnesty – that would destroy conservatism in America for all time, and still call your self a conservative?

Someone is full of it, and it ain’t me. You can’t be a “progressive conservative”, they are polar opposites. You can’t be a conservative and support amnesty, they are diametrically opposed.

You are simply redefining conservatism to fit your preconceived notions, and you’re wrong.

Rebar on September 29, 2011 at 10:06 PM

You should also watch Barry Goldwater’s speech at the 1960 Republican National Convention, during which he yelled, “grow up, conservatives!” in response to many of them who said they would never vote for Nixon.

Conservatism as defined by the fathers of the Conservative philosophy is to deal with reality and play the hand you’re dealt.

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 10:10 PM

Conservatism as defined by the fathers of the Conservative philosophy is to deal with reality and play the hand you’re dealt.

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 10:10 PM

We are playing the hand we’re dealt – that’s what’s called a “primary”. We look at candidates and figure out whom we want to support.

That we don’t like your candidates stance on illegals, nor like it when he calls conservatives “heartless racists”, doesn’t make us nonconservative, it makes him a bad candidate.

Rebar on September 29, 2011 at 10:14 PM

I disagree with Rubio on one issue and to you thanks translates to not supporting him for… something? What it really means is that I disagree with him on this issue. Thats it.

Well, when I asked if you were going to throw Rubio under the bus because you didn’t like his stand on in state tuition for kids of illegals, you seemed to confirm that when you said, “principles matter, not men.” If that sentence didn’t mean that you would throw him under the bus, then I stand corrected. But I’m not sure why you said that in response to my question, unless you were speaking philosophically.

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Rubio is wrong if he supports it, and if Ronald Reagan supported it, he would be wrong too.

sharrukin on September 29, 2011 at 8:46 PM

Well, when I asked if you were going to throw Rubio under the bus because you didn’t like his stand on in state tuition for kids of illegals, you seemed to confirm that when you said, “principles matter, not men.” If that sentence didn’t mean that you would throw him under the bus, then I stand corrected. But I’m not sure why you said that in response to my question, unless you were speaking philosophically.

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 10:15 PM

You don’t really get this at all do you?

I don’t care who the individual is. I care about conservative principles and I support an individual only so far as they advance those principles. When they choose not to support conservatism they forego my support as well.

It seems like everything about this is personal with you. You choose someone and assume they are the embodiment of conservatism and anyone who disagrees with that man isn’t a conservative.

I like Sarah Palin but she has made mistakes and said things that I simply didn’t agree with and I said so at the time. I don’t defend her regardless of what she does which is how you seem to approach any criticism of Perry.

sharrukin on September 29, 2011 at 10:24 PM

That we don’t like your candidates stance on illegals, nor like it when he calls conservatives “heartless racists”, doesn’t make us nonconservative, it makes him a bad candidate.

We aren’t talking about Perry. We’re talking about Rubio, whom I presume you think is more conservative than Perry, and the conservative philosophy.

So, you can support the thing – amnesty – that would destroy conservatism in America for all time, and still call your self a conservative?

Someone is full of it, and it ain’t me. You can’t be a “progressive conservative”, they are polar opposites. You can’t be a conservative and support amnesty, they are diametrically opposed.

You are simply redefining conservatism to fit your preconceived notions, and you’re wrong.

Rebar on September 29, 2011 at 10:06 PM

It is you who is redefining conservatism to meet your preconceived notions, not I. Progressive conservative? What is that? And now I’m all for amnesty? My husband will be so surprised to hear that.

Sheesh, not only are you redefining conservatism to meet your own preconceived ideas, but you’re also redefining amnesty for the exact same reasons and telling me that I support it to boot!

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 10:28 PM

We’re talking about Rubio, whom I presume you think is more conservative than Perry, and the conservative philosophy.

I haven’t paid any attention to Rubio, since I live in Texas.

According to this site, he supports in-state tuition for illegals, and opposed the AZ law. These are not conservative principles.

Sheesh, not only are you redefining conservatism to meet your own preconceived ideas, but you’re also redefining amnesty for the exact same reasons and telling me that I support it to boot!

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 10:28 PM

You are not making a lick of sense.

Amnesty is not a conservative, or GOP, principle. Spending taxpayers money on illegals, for in state tuition or any other reason, is not a conservative, or GOP, principle.

Rubio’s support for illegals getting a taxpayer subsidized college education is wrong, and if he was running for president I would not support him because of it. If he’s selling out his principles to hispander, then he’ll likely sell out in other more important ways.

Rebar on September 29, 2011 at 10:50 PM

You don’t really get this at all do you?

sharrukin on September 29, 2011 at 10:24 PM

You don’t need to get angry. I’m just trying to understand what you’re thinking.

I care about conservative principles and I support an individual only so far as they advance those principles. When they choose not to support conservatism they forego my support as well.

But Marco Rubio does support conservative principles. That’s an established fact. It’s just that he also supports in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants at the state level and only when it makes sense. Does his support of this issue mean you no longer think Marco Rubio is conservative?

Conservatism in America isn’t about strict adherence to one set of issues all the time. It’s a philosophy based upon the large umbrella principles of freedom, liberty, and individualism. All kinds of conservatives differ to some degree on a whole host of issues, but they are still conservatives. In fact, there are various subsets of conservatism: Neo, paleo, fiscal, social, and ideological conservatism.

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4