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.

Tags: , ,

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

Amnesty in the context we’re discussing is granting automatic citizenship to illegal immigrants currently in the US. You keep calling in-state tuition for kids of illegals amnesty. It isn’t.

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

Rebar on September 29, 2011 at 10:50 PM

They’re not principles at all. They are issues. You’re confusing principles with issues.

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 10:57 PM

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

With a amnesty-for-pay2play profit-driven Perry, who has openly boasted he’s “open to amnesty”, Americans would suffer at the hand of Perry and his fellow giveaway leftists. Thank God that he is a mumbling, bumbling amateur and his own worst enemy.

whatcat on September 29, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Perry, who has openly boasted he’s “open to amnesty”,

In an interview with Mark Levin just a few weeks ago, Perry said he was completely against amnesty.

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 11:03 PM

You keep calling in-state tuition for kids of illegals amnesty. It isn’t.

No, I don’t, read better.

They’re not principles at all. They are issues. You’re confusing principles with issues.

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 10:57 PM

No, I am not.

Giving away taxpayers money because you want to “feel good” about the “poor illegal immigrant children” and want to give them a college education on someone else’s dime, is a progressive principle – spread the wealth to those deemed less fortunate. Conservative principles dictate rule of law, and the rule of law states that illegals be arrested and deported when identified.

Arrested. Deported.

Clear, now?

Rebar on September 29, 2011 at 11:04 PM

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?

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

Marco Rubio isn’t a conservative.

He’s a man.

A human being who largely believes in conservative principles, but doesn’t adhere to them totally. Rubio hasn’t even served out one full term yet and you want to prop him up as a conservative standard?

I supported Bill Clinton when he signed the welfare reform bill.

I didn’t support Bush when he pushed for amnesty.

That doesn’t mean I think Bill Clinton is more conservative than Bush.

Handing out freebies isn’t conservative and that is where I part company with Perry, Bush, Reagan, Palin, Clinton and Obama.

I really don’t think its that complicated.

sharrukin on September 29, 2011 at 11:08 PM

Between 2004 and 2008 illegal immigrants attending college in Texas received $33.6 million in state and institutional financial aid.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/headlines/20100314-Number-of-illegal-immigrants-getting-in-9925.ece

Since state and institutional aid is a finite amount, this means that $33.6 million in aid was denied to legal citizens attending Texas state colleges and universities.

bw222 on September 29, 2011 at 11:09 PM

In an interview with Mark Levin just a few weeks ago, Perry said he was completely against amnesty.

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 11:03 PM

Well then I guess he’s a flip-flopper as well.

Shortly after George W. Bush was elected president, Perry wrote a letter to the editor of the Dallas Morning News, “I take strong issue with a news report in the Dallas Morning News mischaracterizing my position on amnesty for undocumented immigrants from Mexico. The truth is, I am intrigued and open to the Bush administration’s amnesty proposal. Most Texans would agree that it’s better to have legal, taxpaying immigrants from Mexico working in the United States than illegal immigrants living in fear of the law and afraid to access basic services.”

sharrukin on September 29, 2011 at 11:10 PM

Rebar, you’ve still got your facts wrong on some things like in-state tuition is “giving” kids a college education, but we’ll have to pick this up again tomorrow. I’ve got to hit the sack.

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 11:11 PM

Sharrukin, that letter was from when, 2001? Ten years ago? Find something recent.

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 11:14 PM

Although I was disappointed in his last debate and annoyed he used the “heartless” word, I haven’t yet ruled out Perry. (Cain is still my top pick, but he may not get the money backing needed to win the nomination.) I think on a Federal level Perry probably would fight illegal immigration by putting those “boots on the ground,” among other things.

But he has to do better. For anyone else who hasn’t ruled him out, here is something interesting I read from Drudge.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/8797753/Exclusive-Rick-Perry-My-wife-prodded-me-to-enter-presidential-race.html

This week, Mrs Perry, who has previously remained in the background of her husband’s campaigns, has been holding solo events on the stump. At a breakfast in Urbandale, Iowa this week she said that he was “going to be better prepared” at the next debate. “He’s never had a debate class nor debate coach in his life.”

Elisa on September 29, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Sharrukin, that letter was from when, 2001? Ten years ago? Find something recent.

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 11:14 PM

Thats the same cheap excuse Romney uses. I don’t buy for him, and I don’t buy it for your guy either.

sharrukin on September 29, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Rebar, you’ve still got your facts wrong on some things like in-state tuition is “giving” kids a college education, but we’ll have to pick this up again tomorrow.

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 11:11 PM

I really don’t care about in state vs. out of state tuition, except as an issue to identify those who are soft on illegals.

Illegals should be deported. Period. Allowing illegals into college at all is a gross violation of the law. When a college enrolls an illegal, they should be charged, and punished. The same with anyone who knowingly employs an illegal. Illegals need to be returned to their country of origin.

Because national sovereignty is a conservative value also.

Rebar on September 29, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Giving away taxpayers money because you want to “feel good” about the “poor illegal immigrant children” and want to give them a college education on someone else’s dime, is a progressive principle – spread the wealth to those deemed less fortunate. Conservative principles dictate rule of law, and the rule of law states that illegals be arrested and deported when identified.
Arrested. Deported.
Clear, now?
Rebar on September 29, 2011 at 11:04 PM

As you can well guess, that point went ZOOM! over Kim’s and fellow liberal “Republicans” (“Compassionate Conservatives” or whatever the leftist nom du jour) heads. As I’ve said before, re: the Lib-Repubs demands for all manner of freebies (much less amnesty) for illegal criminals – they should be the first to belly up to bar to pay for it. They’ve already done enough in demanding that Americans pay for their mooch-encouraging follies.

whatcat on September 29, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Sharrukin, that letter was from when, 2001? Ten years ago? Find something recent.

Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 11:14 PM

You recall the Bush amnesty attempt in 2006?

Border Governors Urge Congress To Pass Immigration Reform Bill
Border governors meeting in Austin signed a letter Friday urging Congress to pass an immigration reform measure by year’s end.
Posted: 4:20 PM Aug 25, 2006

(August 25, 2006)–Leaders of Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona signed a letter Friday urging US lawmakers to pass a comprehensive immigration reform plan by year’s end.
The proposal came at the end of the Border Governors Conference in Austin.
The US governors also joined governors of six Mexican states in signing a joint declaration in which they agreed to detect and deter criminal activity vigilantly along the border.
They’ll share information about issues such as human, drug and arms trafficking.
US House and Senate members have passed differing bills this year dealing with immigration and border security.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry says he and the other governors aren’t endorsing either chamber’s plan.
Perry says it’s time for Congress to act with great expediency.
The Mexican governors didn’t sign the letter, but several urged Congress to act.

Is 2006 still too far back?

sharrukin on September 29, 2011 at 11:24 PM

Perry opposes e-verify.

It’s important to note that some of Perry’s biggest financial contributors are from the home building and poultry industries.

Care to connect the dots?

bw222 on September 29, 2011 at 11:25 PM

bw222 on September 29, 2011 at 11:25 PM

And no one has really touched on his wind power boondoggle.

Rebar on September 29, 2011 at 11:26 PM

It’s important to note that some of Perry’s biggest financial contributors are from the home building and poultry industries.

Care to connect the dots?

bw222 on September 29, 2011 at 11:25 PM

It’s as with Huckabee and his problem with cheap illegal labor for Tyson Industries in 2008. Though we must say it’s fair to admit that Perry has certainly out-cronyed Huckabee.

whatcat on September 29, 2011 at 11:53 PM

Perry needs to be questioned more on what he will do to combat illegal immigration besides the fence issue. I want to hear his position on E-Verify and how hard he will crack down on businesses who hire and profit off of illegals. He also needs to address Sanctuary cities because they undermine Federal Immigration law every day so he can’t dodge the issue saying it’s up to the states.

I don’t want another George W Bush in the White House. I respect Perry’s basic small government conservatism as expressed in his book, but no way do I want another “compassionate conservative” when it comes to border and immigration law. You want the Hispanic vote? Pass aggressive tax and budget reform, their approval will grow with the economy.

Speaking of Tax reform, where the hell is Perry’s plan? Just steal Huntsman’s plan who stole it from the Bowles/Simpson commission.

Daemonocracy on September 30, 2011 at 2:28 AM

Romney wants to turn off the magnet.

Perry wants to make the magnet stronger.

Got it.

faraway on September 29, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Romney’s the guy in the alley with a trench coat full of magnets keeping the coat closed when conservatives walk by and flashing his goods to illegals as they walk by.

The only reason Perry’s illegal immigration responses at the debates have not completely sunk his candidacy is because of the powerful anti-Romney vote.

Daemonocracy on September 30, 2011 at 2:35 AM

Perry needs to be questioned more on what he will do to combat illegal immigration besides the fence issue. I want to hear his position on E-Verify and how hard he will crack down on businesses who hire and profit off of illegals. He also needs to address Sanctuary cities because they undermine Federal Immigration law every day so he can’t dodge the issue saying it’s up to the states.

I don’t want another George W Bush in the White House. I respect Perry’s basic small government conservatism as expressed in his book, but no way do I want another “compassionate conservative” when it comes to border and immigration law. You want the Hispanic vote? Pass aggressive tax and budget reform, their approval will grow with the economy.

Speaking of Tax reform, where the hell is Perry’s plan? Just steal Huntsman’s plan who stole it from the Bowles/Simpson commission.

Daemonocracy on September 30, 2011 at 2:28 AM

True, but the underlying question on this is if Perry still is pushing for the Bush-like blanket amnesty for illegals. He is on record as supporting it. In this campaign season has he had a sudden conversion or is he still for it?

whatcat on September 30, 2011 at 2:50 AM

the Texas legislature is totally conservative, so the only way he could govern was to either go behind their backs with executive orders, or go along to get along and live off their coattails instead of the other way around.

If you are a die hard Perry supporter, can you locate me a single instance where this man led from the absolute front against the feelings of the day to promote a single conservative ideal? Just name one for me.

astonerii on September 29, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Oh yeah, that same legislature who overwhelmingly passed the in state tuition law which is the major issue here. That’s the one, right?

As for your last comment, he is definitely a States Rights Federalist and was an early critic of Obamacare and Federal regulations. His book will fill the rest in for you, the same book Romney seems to find so offensive.

Daemonocracy on September 30, 2011 at 2:54 AM

whatcat on September 30, 2011 at 2:50 AM

He said he was against Amnesty at the debate and has said it numerous other times. I have no idea about the Bush veiled-amnesty plan, but he should be asked about it as should every candidate.

Romney also supported the Bush plan before he was against it. This is what is so damn frustrating in this primary and Herman Cain is still a big wild card, especially on foreign policy. I am seriously taking another look at Gingrich, at least I expect him to go with the Tea Party populist flow as he did in the 90s despite his recent irritations.

Daemonocracy on September 30, 2011 at 3:00 AM

whatcat on September 30, 2011 at 2:50 AM

He said he was against Amnesty at the debate and has said it numerous other times.
Daemonocracy on September 30, 2011 at 3:00 AM

The problem is he is on record with his stated position on giving illegals a free pass – here it is, verbatim:
“The truth is, I am intrigued and open to the Bush administration’s amnesty proposal.”

So, the question is, if he truly has had a sudden 180 degree come-2-Jesus moment on amnesty within the last week, just how did he arrive at the conclusion he was wrong before?

whatcat on September 30, 2011 at 5:28 AM

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

I don’t care about his website or his stances. I care about what he has actually done. He has governed as a liberal. Pro-choice. Mandated health insurance. Hell, Romney and his wife donated to planned parenthood. And you Rombots want us to ignore that because of Perry has flubbed a debate. Romney is lying threw his teeth saying anything to get elected. How can you justify his changing the words in his book for political expediency? Would any honest person do such a thing?

Bill C on September 30, 2011 at 9:54 AM

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

Is being pro choice conservative?

Bill C on September 30, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Perry opposes e-verify.

It’s important to note that some of Perry’s biggest financial contributors are from the home building and poultry industries.

Care to connect the dots?

bw222 on September 29, 2011 at 11:25 PM

There is no excuse to oppose e-verify, except to keep illegal aliens on the payroll, and Perry does oppose e-verify

2010 debate with kay bailey Hutchison:

During Friday’s debate, Gov. Rick Perry said: “E-Verify would not make a hill of beans’ difference when it comes to what’s happening in America today. You secure the border first, then you can talk about how to identify individuals in an immigration situation.”

entagor on September 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM

New Perry item on Drudge, Perry heckled at Mexican restaurant on Dream act:

The federal government demands we give them healthcare, we educate them. So in Texas we’ve decided we want them to be part of the work force and not part of the problem,” said Gov. Perry.

entagor on September 30, 2011 at 10:40 AM

Is being pro choice conservative?

Bill C on September 30, 2011 at 9:55 AM

No, it’s not.

Someone not being a Perry supporter, does not make them a Romney supporter.

More bad news for Perry:

The federal judge says some parts of the law are in conflict with federal statutes, but others aren’t. She’s letting stand the part of the law that requires immigration status checks of public school students. She’s also refusing to stop provisions that allow police to hold suspected illegal immigrants without bond, and that make it a felony for an illegal immigrant to do business with the state.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/28/politics/main20112968.shtml

Alabama can get tough with illegals, Arizona can get tough with illegals, yet all Perry can to is blame the federal government for his hispandering.

Rebar on September 30, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Perry opposes e-verify.

bw222 on September 29, 2011 at 11:25 PM

Governor Perry called a special session of State Legislatures to try to get an E-verify bill passed that did not pass in the regular session. The Texas Legislature is who failed to pass the E-verify bill.

tmontgomery on October 3, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Illegals should be deported. Period.

Rebar on September 29, 2011 at 11:19 PM

And who has the constitutional authority to deport illegals? Not the State Governors.

tmontgomery on October 3, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Perry needs to be questioned more on what he will do to combat illegal immigration besides the fence issue. I want to hear his position on E-Verify and how hard he will crack down on businesses who hire and profit off of illegals. He also needs to address Sanctuary cities because they undermine Federal Immigration law every day so he can’t dodge the issue saying it’s up to the states.

Daemonocracy on September 30, 2011 at 2:28 AM

Hopefully you will find this link helpful in answering your questions on Perry’s commitment to these issues.

tmontgomery on October 3, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Sorry, the link button did not work.

http://www.themonitor.com/news/cities-51442-perry-sanctuary.html

tmontgomery on October 3, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4