The Rick Perry boomlet is coming

posted at 12:41 pm on January 26, 2015 by Noah Rothman

The race for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 is well underway. In the press, establishment-friendly candidates like Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, and even Chris Christie have garnered the most attention. Among conservatives, first-time candidates like Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, and Rand Paul generate the most enthusiasm. In the frenzy, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry seems all but forgotten.

On paper, this makes little sense. Perry served three terms as governor of the nation’s second largest state, which also happens to be the geographic heart of the conservative movement. Both on the stump and in more intimate settings, Perry regularly wows crowds of Republican primary voters. “Rick Perry followed with a powerful and energetic speech that fired up the crowd once again,” read Ed’s impression of Perry’s speech to Iowa Freedom Summit attendees this weekend. “He hammered Obama on immigration, and then shouted down protesters by promising them more of the fight for the next two years.”

If Perry has been written off in the media and even among many conservatives, that is entirely due to his lackluster showing in the 2012 debates when his mind was dulled by the painkillers he took while recovering from back surgery. But the Texas governor has been rebranding himself a serious policy candidate in the years that have passed since he briefly spiked in polls nearly four years ago. Last week, The Washington Post noted how the former Lone Star State governor has been boning up on issues relating to both economic and foreign policy. What’s more, it seems as though he has become more effective at articulating his positions in a compelling fashion.

Perry is still best positioned of nearly every prospective 2016 candidate to brand himself as strong on the issue that is foremost on the minds of most voters: Jobs and the economic recovery. The Texas economy is the envy of every state in the Union. What’s more, the issue of immigration has taken on new importance for Republican primary voters in the wake of a border crisis in 2014 and continued efforts by both Republicans and Democrats to reform the nation’s immigration system. Perry has served on the frontlines of the fight against illegal immigration for over a decade.

Even in spite of his qualifications, Perry is still running a nascent campaign that has largely escaped the notice of much of the conservative universe. That might soon change. As Newt Gingrich knows quite well, there is no better vehicle for ingratiating yourself to the conservative electorate than to impeach the political press for biased, unfair, or misleading coverage. Perry will soon have an opportunity to do just that.

Writing in Esquire, Charles Pierce would really like you to remember that Rick Perry is the only Republican presidential candidate to be indicted by a local Texas district attorney. The word “indicted” in Pierce’s profile of the former governor appeared in both his headline and twice in his first paragraph – though the words “Rick Perry” were absent from that lede.

Pierce also apparently seeks to popularize a new pejorative applied to Perry and his like: “Tenther.” He borrowed this term from The Center for American Progress. It is designed to lump those who believe in the authority of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which provides the states with significant agency over their own affairs, with conspiracy theorists of a variety equal to those who believe the United States government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks (ironically, a belief once held by Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Van Jones).

In this, of course, Perry seems to be running, not for the constitutional office of president of the United States but, rather, for the powerless office of the chief executive under the Articles of Confederation. (Perry In ’81!) Under the Articles, the states actually did compete with each other, and the result was a government that looked more like a sales war between 13 individual funeral homes.

So, in conclusion, Rick Perry is going to prove his devotion to the Constitution by an appeal for a return to the system that failed so badly that the Constitution had to be devised in the first place. But, given the nature of the prospective Republican field in 2016, he can be just as formidable as people thought he would be four years ago, when the counting to three became a problem, even now when he is, for the moment, the only indicted candidate in the field. (Being indicted, in fact, proved to be something of a career move.) . He knows very well what federal agencies he would do away with now. The Constitution speaks to him in a tongue not its own.

Paranoid oikophobia oozes from this contemptuous piece, and it is something that Perry can use to his advantage. If the left is so concerned about the prospect of competition between the states, as Pierce seems to be, Perry need only ask why that is the case. The answer to his question would be that the state he led for 12 years is presently winning that competition by a country mile. While he is at it, Perry could make an issue of the often abused Commerce Clause – the nuances of which, as Pierce demonstrates, few average Americans understand.

What’s more, conservatives will relish the opportunity to re-litigate Perry’s indictment. Not only was it the work of a district attorney who was likely motivated by sour grapes after the governor unsuccessfully pursued her resignation following a drunk-driving arrest, it is constitutionally troubling.

As Jazz wrote in November, constitutional scholar and Washington Post blogger Eugene Volokh suggests that Perry’s indictment violated the Texas Constitution’s separation of powers and the governor’s immunity privileges relating to vetoing legislation. Further, it criminalizes free speech. The indictment alleges that Perry broke the law when he merely threatened to issue a veto if the DA failed to resign.

All this smacks of persecution, and conservatives know that condition well. Perhaps more than any of the other “also rans” in 2012, Perry is the most deserving of a second look from the Republican electorate. He has found it hard to break away from the pack but, if his treatment in Esquire is any indication of how the press will treat a reengineered Perry campaign, the former governor can use this episode to engineer a boomlet in the polls. The ball is now in Rick Perry’s court.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Another old story which has been debunked.

Sarah Palin says she is not afraid to call out fellow Republicans when she thinks they have been “part of the problem.” On Monday night, Palin accuses Republican candidate for President Rick Perry of engaging in “crony capitalism.” Perry, as governor of Texas, mandated that young girls get a vaccination for the HPV virus in an executive order. Perry is criticized for this in part because of his connections to the drug manufacturer Merck.

huckleberryfriend on January 26, 2015 at 3:47 PM

Perry maintains that the justification for his executive order making the shot mandatory was twofold: 1) that the vaccine offered a chance to save lives that might have otherwise been taken away by cervical cancer and, 2) that insurance companies wouldn’t cover the $360 cost of the vaccine ($120 for each of a 3-shot regimen) when it was simply an optional “recommended” vaccine. That put it out of the reach for most low-income Texans. This from the Time Magazine article (linked above), “Some pediatricians and gynecologists are refusing to stock Gardasil because many insurance companies reimburse so little for the vaccine, which costs $360 for the three required doses.”

When Perry mandated Gardasil, it would have become part of a school-related vaccine package which was then covered by insurance for simply the cost of a co-pay.

Seems reasonable to me.

Regarding Merck: For comparison, from 2000-2006 Merck gave $2,460,000 to state politicians across 40 states. Perry was just one.
This and all other construed stories are answered here: http://www.redstate.com/diary/izoneguy/2011/08/14/seventeen-17-things-that-critics-are-saying-about-rick-perry/

avagreen on January 26, 2015 at 4:06 PM

We are required by federal law to educate/house/feed the illegals as we can’t deport them. Texas has actually been sued by the Feds when we’ve tried to.

If the border agents catch them, ICE turns them loose the next day. We are required to keep them. So, if you had thousands of people living on your front yard that you are required to house/feed/educate and can’t make them go away, while spending over $1.5M a year to do so, what would you do?

My governor made the decision to give them in-state tuition in order to get an education so they can get real jobs and start paying taxes. Under the law, any student who has lived in Texas at least three years and graduated from a Texas high school qualifies for in-state tuition….other out-of-state students have to only wait a year to get in-state. (Their parents, BTW, have been paying taxes for that three years. I think there’s some legal consequences if they don’t get some benefits of those taxes they’ve been paying.) And, most of these students on this program went into trade schools, not universities that libs would like for everyone to believe, and getting ooodles and ooodles of $$ to go to college.

A) not sure there’s proof the parents are paying taxes. How can they be if they are “illegal”? If they are illegal, they are not on the employers books, don’t have a SS#, etc.

Now, they may have stolen an identity and be working under that SS# and paying taxes under that. But, in order to know that person is paying the various income taxes and the employer is paying their share of the payroll tax, we’d have to know that he employee stole an identity and is fraudulently using a SS#. So, claiming these parents all paying income taxes is a little unlikely.

b) There is a big difference between having to provide a k-12 education and giving in-state tuition.

c) not sure why 3 years is used. That appears to me to be an incentive to get the kids here to finish high school and then go to college. Why not 10 years? The lower amount of time required, the more pro-amnesty the program appears.

d) Perry could easily have made the argument you make and say “I’m for deportation, not grating amnesty, but until that happens I have to do something with these kids”. Instead he called opponents “heartless”, which implies he thinks there is a moral requirement that we give these illegals something.

e) the issue isn’t how much this cost, or whether American Citizens from other states can get in-state tuition after just one year. The issue is granting a benefit to an admitted illegal. Sure, there may be some benefits to the program. And just as many bad consequences, such as encouraging more illegal immigration.

Regardless, your argument does not prove Perry is anti-amnesty. And – to me – the program still tends to support that he leans pro-amnesty. The argument you put forward is probably as persuasive as one can make for why the program is not “pro-amnesty”, but I am not sold. However, I am still open to hear what he has to say on the subject.

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:09 PM

avagreen on January 26, 2015 at 4:06 PM

Not from something I read from a political site, but from more than one pediatrician:

Cervical cancer remains the only cancer that can be cured with a simple vaccination. And Gardisil is that vaccination.

At the time, medicaid or many insurance policies did not cover the vaccine.

Making it mandatory for school kids would have caused it to be covered.

At the time this was going on, my wife and I were debating the decision to have it done.

cozmo on January 26, 2015 at 4:13 PM

A) not sure there’s proof the parents are paying taxes. How can they be if they are “illegal”? If they are illegal, they are not on the employers books, don’t have a SS#, etc.

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:09 PM

Sigh, it is easier to prove that they are paying taxes in regards to school funding than not. To even suggest that is ridiculous.

Do you even know how public education is paid for in Texas?

Your other points ain’t any better.

cozmo on January 26, 2015 at 4:17 PM

not sure there’s proof the parents are paying taxes. How can they be if they are “illegal”? If they are illegal, they are not on the employers books, don’t have a SS#, etc.
Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:09 PM

Can’t get around paying sales taxes, and rent includes property taxes, etc. Gasoline has taxes. Eating out has taxes included. Get it?

b) There is a big difference between having to provide a k-12 education and giving in-state tuition.

The law sets precedent that “undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents.”
You are aware that 10 other states have this same law? And, as stated above, it should be noted that it passed the Texas Senate with NO “no” votes – Perry was not out on a limb on this one, it was overwhelmingly supported.

And – to me – the program still tends to support that he leans pro-amnesty.

And, I’m sure as rain you’d like to live in a state that pays out $1.5B yearly to take care of these folks who can’t pay payroll taxes? Right?

avagreen on January 26, 2015 at 4:19 PM

No it isn’t. That was put in to place by the legislature overwhelmingly approved by both parties. A Perry veto would have been over ridden.

Schools are funded by property and sales taxes. Illegals pay both.

These aren’t teenagers freshly over the Rio Grand taking slots from citizens.

Texas has one of the best higher education programs around for those who want to learn.

cozmo on January 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM

Nonsense on stilts. First, colleges are not funded by property tax – K-12 is.

But that it is irrelevant. If an illegal buys property, that makes him a citizen of the state? Makes him eligible for legal status or gov’t benefits? Is that your argument? Because foreign nationals who have never even been in the Country can buy property. Regardless, I find it hard to believe that a lot of, or even a large minority of illegals own property.

As far as sales tax – what, if someone comes in the country illegally and buys a coke and pays the sales taxes they get all the rights of a citizen of the state? Is that really your argument?

Whether Texas has a good higher education program is also completely irrelevant.

And, it doesn’t matter whether the statute was passed in a bipartisan fashion or if they would have overridden a veto. If someone passes a bad law in a bipartisan fashion – it doesn’t make it a good law.

And, if they can override a veto, what? It makes it a good law?

The issue here is whether Perry was in favor of giving a legal benefit to illegals. He was. It is the same as if he signed a law giving them a state license, or some other benefit.

You are trying to argue that somehow this is not the same thing as giving an illegal a gov’t benefit. I don’t see how you can square that circle.

If you are willing to give gov’t benefit “a” to an illegal, why would you be unwilling to give gov’t benefit “b”?

It makes no sense to claim that someone in favor of conferring a gov’t benefit on an admitted illegal alien is somehow going to be against amnesty.

I’m not saying that there aren’t arguments to be made for this program. There are some decent arguments. I’m not persuaded by them, but whatever. But, if you are going to do this, you have to somehow explain why you think this is a good idea but amnesty is a bad idea.

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:19 PM

Can’t get around paying sales taxes, and rent includes property taxes, etc. Gasoline has taxes. Eating out has taxes included. Get it?

So if you pay sales taxes, you are entitled to all of the rights and benefits of a legal resident? Get it? Do you get how absurd your argument is?

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:20 PM

The law sets precedent that “undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents.”
You are aware that 10 other states have this same law? And, as stated above, it should be noted that it passed the Texas Senate with NO “no” votes – Perry was not out on a limb on this one, it was overwhelmingly supported.

Let them challenge it then. How do you make the above argument but still argue to me that out of state residents get in-state tuition after one year? Treating the illegals differently, no?

As far as who voted for it – so what? Is your argument that if something is bipartisan, it must be good? is that really what you are arguing?

And, I’m sure as rain you’d like to live in a state that pays out $1.5B yearly to take care of these folks who can’t pay payroll taxes? Right?

Not sure what you are arguing for here. sounds to me like you are pro-amnesty under this belief that amnesty will suddenly find jobs for all of these unemployed people. This argument makes no sense.

Regardless, back on point – Perry was for, and argued passionately for, giving known illegals state benefits. This is no different than giving them state driver’s license or something else.

And how, pray tell, can an illegal pay payroll taxes – even after receiving the college education? answer – they cannot. Because they can’t legally work in the U.S. so your argument has no merit whatsoever. The very rational – getting them to pay payroll taxes – requires that amnesty happen first.

That is called circular reasoning.

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:26 PM

The argument you put forward is probably as persuasive as one can make for why the program is not “pro-amnesty”, but I am not sold. However, I am still open to hear what he has to say on the subject.

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:09 PM

Then, perhaps you should read more b/f posting.

The federal DREAM Act is an amnesty bill, and I strongly oppose amnesty.

More:

Because the federal government has failed in its basic duty to protect our borders, states are forced to deal with illegal immigrant issues.

In Texas, we had to deal with the children of illegal immigrants residing in our state and attending our schools, as the federal government requires states to educate these children through the public school system. Lawmakers in Texas — indisputably one of the most conservative states in America — were virtually unanimous in their decision.

The Legislature determined the payment of in-state college tuition is available to all students who have lived in Texas for at least three years and graduated from a public high school. If you meet those requirements, you pay in-state tuition, whether you relocated from Oklahoma, Idaho, Canada or Mexico. The only difference is that Texas residents who aren’t documented must be on the path to pursue U.S. citizenship to be allowed to pay in-state tuition.

There were a number of reasons the bill received widespread support among conservatives. Importantly, it has never had a cost to Texas taxpayers. In fact, our institutions of higher learning would actually lose tens of millions of dollars in lost tuition payments if the law were repealed.

http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/interviewing-rick-perry-on-illegal-immigration-2/

avagreen on January 26, 2015 at 4:27 PM

Sigh, it is easier to prove that they are paying taxes in regards to school funding than not. To even suggest that is ridiculous.

Do you even know how public education is paid for in Texas?

Your other points ain’t any better.

cozmo on January 26, 2015 at 4:17 PM

Sigh – college is paid for by property taxes in Texas? Really? Want to rethink that or keep going with it?

As far as sales taxes – your inane argument appears to be that anyone who can get into America and buy a coke deserves all state benefits. Think about what you are arguing before you throw it at a wall – what you are arguing is asinine.

Let’s assume that illegals parents pay sales taxes and that some even own property and pay property taxes. Does that mean they are entitled to legal status – because that is essentially what you are arguing.

You don’t have any points worth considering. If the best you can argue is “they pay sales tax”, then you really have no argument do you?

Sigh. big sigh. Huge sigh. I can’t stop sighing.

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:29 PM

avagreen on January 26, 2015 at 4:27 PM

I said I’m open to hearing him. You are not doing anything to persuade me.

It’s hard to square the circle you are trying to square here – giving a state benefit to an illegal versus not wanting to give a benefit to an illegal.

Reread what you bolded in your last comment. That means K-12. what Perry did was provide for higher education.

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:32 PM

Nonsense on stilts. First, colleges are not funded by property tax – K-12 is.

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:19 PM

Ignorance on display.

Property tax funds K-12 junior college and any other higher education program the taxing entity sees fit to provide.

Wanna’ see my property tax bills?

I did not say all college funding came from property taxes. You skipped the sales taxes that I also mentioned.

Not counting the money that goes to many state schools after being scammed by a yankee who took their farmland and traded it for west Texas scrub. That happened to be sitting on a crapload of oil.

You are using a very tangential argument to put the blame for in-state tuition on Perry. Even Texans who don’t like Perry know how stupidly wrong that is.

cozmo on January 26, 2015 at 4:32 PM

*facepalm* Sheesh! No, I’m not for amnesty. I’m just for not having to pay out $1.5B a year to feed/house these folks.

And how, pray tell, can an illegal pay payroll taxes – even after receiving the college education? answer – they cannot. Because they can’t legally work in the U.S. so your argument has no merit whatsoever. The very rational – getting them to pay payroll taxes – requires that amnesty happen first.

That is called circular reasoning.Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:26 PM

Have you read any of the links I posted prior to posting.

The law also requires noncitizens to apply for citizenship.

avagreen on January 26, 2015 at 4:33 PM

your inane argument appears to be that anyone who can get into America and buy a coke deserves all state benefits. Think about what you are arguing before you throw it at a wall – what you are arguing is asinine.

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:29 PM

You can call it whatever you want, you are still wrong. And obviously so.

It is not asinine, it is the way things are, and just so happens to be the law. And it would have still become law if Perry had vetoed it.

Go teach your pony a new trick. This one ain’t working. Except for fellow Perry-hatin’ nutballs.

cozmo on January 26, 2015 at 4:36 PM

avagreen on January 26, 2015 at 4:27 PM

What I find most interesting is that I wrote in my original few comments that I thought Perry was about the best of the bunch (outside of Cruz who I don’t think has a chance) – but that wasn’t good enough and you and Cozmo and you want to persuade me that he is perfect or something.

He gave illegal a state benefit. You want to somehow claim that he was required to do it. If so, they did not even need to pass a law, a federal court would have already said it.

You can’t have it both ways. There are some valid points for the tuition statute, but that doesn’t mean it is not indicative of leaning toward amnesty.

Like I said, I could be wrong on that – I’m willing to listen, but nothing you or Cozmo has said has persuaded me that:

a) Perry was “required” to do this; or

b) granting illegals in-state tuition to college is not of a kind with granting illegals other sorts of benefits/status.

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:36 PM

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:32 PM

Do you know what a precedent is?

“The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents.

avagreen on January 26, 2015 at 4:38 PM

And how, pray tell, can an illegal pay payroll taxes – even after receiving the college education? answer – they cannot. Because they can’t legally work in the U.S. so your argument has no merit whatsoever. The very rational – getting them to pay payroll taxes – requires that amnesty happen first.

That is called circular reasoning.

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:26 PM

Actually, they can. The IRS can assign illegal aliens a taxpayer ID number (similar to what businesses use). And, the IRS refuses to share information with ICE. It’s also possible (using this Taxpayer ID Number) that illegals can pay little or nothing in taxes and sometimes receive $1,000 per child for children outside the US including for some children that may not even actually exist:

http://cis.org/child-tax-credits

bw222 on January 26, 2015 at 4:39 PM

You can call it whatever you want, you are still wrong. And obviously so.

It is not asinine, it is the way things are, and just so happens to be the law. And it would have still become law if Perry had vetoed it.

Go teach your pony a new trick. This one ain’t working. Except for fellow Perry-hatin’ nutballs.

cozmo on January 26, 2015 at 4:36 PM

You really need to read my comments. I said in my first few comments that I thought Perry was the best of the bunch (except for Cruz who I don’t think has a shot). So, you need to calm down.

“It’s the law” So is Obamacare. What is your point? And Romneycare would have become law if Romney had vetoed that in MA. Is that really your argument?

I’m not wrong, let alone obviously wrong – particularly when I write that it is my opinion that him passing that law shows he leans pro-amnesty. Pretty hard to be wrong about one’s opinion.

I’m not even sure what point you think you are making. You appear to argue that if someone pays sales taxes, they are entitled to every benefit/status in a state regardless of legality? Is that it? If not, please clarify.

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:40 PM

– but that wasn’t good enough and you and Cozmo and you want to persuade me that he is perfect or something.

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:36 PM

BS, your ignorance of what happened is what this is about.

Your complete denial of historical fact is what we were trying to correct.

Some people are just stuck on stupid.

cozmo on January 26, 2015 at 4:40 PM

It will be Jeb Bush (maybe Rubio) or Kasich in the end. I’ve got two reasons why. Florida and Ohio.

AYNBLAND on January 26, 2015 at 3:15 PM

…and Hillary will be inaugurated in January 2017.

Redstone on January 26, 2015 at 3:44 PM

Inane. HRC is a crappy retail politician – we’ve watched her before. Redstone – why not tell us who you think can beat HRC since you think I’m wrong?

AYNBLAND on January 26, 2015 at 4:42 PM

Have you read any of the links I posted prior to posting.

The law also requires noncitizens to apply for citizenship.

avagreen on January 26, 2015 at 4:33 PM

I read them all. It’s circular.

You argue:

a) we have to give them in-state tuition so they can pay payroll taxes.

– but-

b) they are illegal so they cannot legally be hired.

Please explain how you square that circle. How can your argument make sense considering they cannot legally be hired? And don’t point me to past comments, none addresses this issue.

As far as requiring them to get citizenship – or what? They have to pay it back? How do they gain citizenship when they can’t even gain legal status?

Your arguments are getting less persuasive as we go. Again, I am open to Perry, but I think he – like everyone else in the GOP – leans toward supporting amnesty.

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:43 PM

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:40 PM

That’s not my argument at all.

You are a true believer when it comes to thinking Perry is pro-amnesty and ignorantly ranting over a duly passed law in Texas is the stick you are drunkenly wielding.

cozmo on January 26, 2015 at 4:43 PM

Cozmo,

You are a big man, aren’t you?

BS, your ignorance of what happened is what this is about.

Your complete denial of historical fact is what we were trying to correct.

Some people are just stuck on stupid.

cozmo on January 26, 2015 at 4:40 PM

Please, show me where I am wrong. You have yet to be right on any single fact and you have shown no logic whatsoever.

And you are being an asshole.

What “historical fact” did I miss? That you argue that paying sales taxes entitles one to the benefits of legal status?

If you give a benefit to an illegal – how do you claim to be against giving benefits to illegals? Please explain with facts. You have yet to do anything remotely like arguing based on facts and logic.

Silly.

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:45 PM

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:43 PM Already have, Monkey.
You just refuse to read.
BTW, citizens can be “legally hired”. If this confuses you, go back and read some posts above.

avagreen on January 26, 2015 at 4:47 PM

Correction:

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:43 PM

Already have, Monkey.
You just refuse to read.
BTW, citizens can be “legally hired”. If this confuses you, go back and read some posts above.

avagreen on January 26, 2015 at 4:48 PM

Do you know what a precedent is?

“The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents.“

avagreen on January 26, 2015 at 4:38 PM

then why did the statute have to be passed? Why does it differentiate between other state’s citizens (1 year) and illegals (3 years).

I know what precedent is. You don’t understand how these things work. According to your very wrong reading of this case, we shouldn’t even be having this argument as illegals would be entitled to everything a legal resident is – which is obviously not the case or we wouldn’t have discussion about “illegals” or “amnesty” or “living in the shadows”.

According to your very wrong interpretation of the above quote – Texas was required to give in-state tuition, and would be just as required to give a driver’s license, or DSS, or any other benefit the State of Texas confers on anyone. which you do know is not true – correct?

I hate it when non-lawyers read something and think they understand how the law works. Sometimes, a little knowledge truly can be a dangerous thing.

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:49 PM

BTW, citizens can be “legally hired”. If this confuses you, go back and read some posts above.

avagreen on January 26, 2015 at 4:47 PM

Dear god. they are citizens now?

Last I checked we were talking about illegals. does the Texas statute now confer U.S. Citizenship on the illegal if they attend college?

You are an idiot. I’m done – you truly have no ability to comprehend simple things.

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:51 PM

You are a true believer when it comes to thinking Perry is pro-amnesty and ignorantly ranting over a duly passed law in Texas is the stick you are drunkenly wielding.

cozmo on January 26, 2015 at 4:43 PM

that’s idiotic. What difference does it make if it was “duly passed”?

Again, Obamacare was duly passed. Does that mean I have to support it?

I’ve seen you comment before, and you have never been this dumb. So, I’m guessing you are doing it on purpose for some inane reason.

Regardless, I’m leaving for the night, so you two can continue your dishonest drivel without me.

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:53 PM

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:49 PM

Whatever you are smoking or drinking, please put it down. The law that I quoted had nothing to do with anything other than education. If you don’t like it, take it up with the Supreme Court.

avagreen on January 26, 2015 at 4:53 PM

Please, show me where I am wrong. You have yet to be right on any single fact and you have shown no logic whatsoever.

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:45 PM

Um, sweetie, I have been right on every fact and am the epitome of logic.

You have ranted, obfuscated and twisted facts to put the blame on Perry for in state tuition for illegals.

As for being big…about 185 and a couple inches short of 6′. Though that is immense compared to your logic here.

cozmo on January 26, 2015 at 4:57 PM

Inane. HRC is a crappy retail politician – we’ve watched her before. Redstone – why not tell us who you think can beat HRC since you think I’m wrong?

AYNBLAND on January 26, 2015 at 4:42 PM

There is no way to tell right now, we need a winnowing out period to decide who the best nominee is.

The only thing that IS certain is that Jeb Bush has no chance; he takes pride in alienating the right, and the left and middle will never vote for him due to his last name.

Most importantly, Jeb and Hillary’s policies are the same, so if by some fluke he somehow won, the country would still lose.

So, of the remaining candidates we can decide, but Jeb is not a serious candidate and should not be considered.

Kasich and Rubio have massive weaknesses of their own, but they don’t need to be eliminated from the discussion, yet.

Redstone on January 26, 2015 at 5:41 PM

If they are illegal, they are not on the employers books, don’t have a SS#, etc.

Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 4:09 PM

Of course the foreign criminals have SS numbers – they’ve stolen them from Americans via massive identity theft.

whatcat on January 26, 2015 at 6:00 PM

He has not come out against strongly against amnesty (defined as giving illegals any form of legal status) and he is for in-state tuition for illegals.
Monkeytoe on January 26, 2015 at 3:46 PM

I’ve always been under the impression that in-state tuition rates only care about if your physical address of residency is…”in-state”. Does it usually get into citizenship status? Why should it, if not?

anuts on January 26, 2015 at 6:21 PM

I’ve always been under the impression that in-state tuition rates only care about if your physical address of residency is…”in-state”. Does it usually get into citizenship status? Why should it, if not?

Because there are these things called “laws”, I don’t know if you have heard of them before.

Redstone on January 26, 2015 at 6:24 PM

Because there are these things called “laws”, I don’t know if you have heard of them before.
Redstone on January

I have. And thank you for the reminder but it does nothing to help answer my inquiry. I was unaware that breaking any unrelated laws to residency bars one from gaining in-state tuition if they attend a college within the state where they reside.

Not filing taxes, for example, is also illegal. In other words, that is also a thing called a “law.” Would that negate in-state tuition if a student broke that law while attending/applying for a college within the state they reside?

anuts on January 26, 2015 at 6:34 PM

Not filing taxes, for example, is also illegal. In other words, that is also a thing called a “law.” Would that negate in-state tuition if a student broke that law while attending/applying for a college within the state they reside?

anuts on January 26, 2015 at 6:34 PM

Well, that has little to do with whether or not one is a legal resident of the state or the country.

I can’t just waltz into Switzerland and demand benefits, such as subsidized higher education, that Swiss legal residents and taxpayers are entitled to, there is an orderly process to becoming a citizen that is more involved than simply being physically inside the jurisdiction of Switzerland.

Redstone on January 26, 2015 at 6:45 PM

Redstone on January 26, 2015 at 6:45 PM

I agree. And since we both agree, what is the college’s in question responsibility beyond finding out if they live in-state?

I just haven’t seen a compelling reason why they should concern themselves with citizenship status. If the criteria for in-state tuition is residing in the same state for x number of consecutive months…then why the need to go beyond that information (on their end)?

anuts on January 26, 2015 at 6:57 PM

I just haven’t seen a compelling reason why they should concern themselves with citizenship status. If the criteria for in-state tuition is residing in the same state for x number of consecutive months…then why the need to go beyond that information (on their end)?

While certainly colleges should not be expected to enforce immigration law, normally more information is required of an applicant than simply their supposed address.

For example, a SS#, which is available only to citizens.

If fraud has been committed in the form of identity theft, and everything checks out on the college’s end, the college should not be held responsible for the act of criminality by the illegal alien.

However the issue is more about an official such as a Rick Perry deciding that foreigners should be treated as TX residents for the purposes of higher education, which makes little sense and is nothing more than pandering.

Redstone on January 26, 2015 at 7:14 PM

Redstone on January 26, 2015 at 7:14 PM

Citizens of the U.S., not residents of Texas. Citizens of the U.S. Big difference. So they can become taxpayers instead of tax drainers.

Pandering? Apparently, the people here in Texas that have to live in this situation who have to cough up this tax money don’t agree with you, or the bill would not have passed in Austin to allow this.

Yeah, on second thought, I guess it would be better for the world at large and other states that have the luxury of being far away from this problem for Texas to continue to spend billions each year to house/feed these folk, instead of making them taxpayers. /sarc

avagreen on January 26, 2015 at 8:24 PM

Repeat about citizenship from above:

Lawmakers in Texas — indisputably one of the most conservative states in America — were virtually unanimous in their decision.

The Legislature determined the payment of in-state college tuition is available to all students who have lived in Texas for at least three years and graduated from a public high school. If you meet those requirements, you pay in-state tuition, whether you relocated from Oklahoma, Idaho, Canada or Mexico. The only difference is that Texas residents who aren’t documented must be on the path to pursue U.S. citizenship to be allowed to pay in-state tuition.

There were a number of reasons the bill received widespread support among conservatives. Importantly, it has never had a cost to Texas taxpayers. In fact, our institutions of higher learning would actually lose tens of millions of dollars in lost tuition payments if the law were repealed.

http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/interviewing-rick-perry-on-illegal-immigration-2/

avagreen on January 26, 2015 at 8:30 PM

avagreen on January 26, 2015 at 8:24 PM

If it was so popular, it wouldn’t have sunk his campaign last time around.

I don’t live in TX, so if TX wants to pursue that course that is up to them and it is fine with me.

However, rolling out the welcome mat for illegal aliens simply means that within 20 years or so TX will be a blue state, which means that the GOP will never win another election.

So, people who understand the issue should try and make sure that TX doesn’t make foolish decisions and instead focuses on enforcing immigration laws.

Redstone on January 26, 2015 at 11:13 PM

Gig Em’

God Bless Texas!

workingclass artist on January 27, 2015 at 12:10 AM

Redstone on January 26, 2015 at 11:13 PM

Prejudice and ignorance speaking.
We can’t stop the flow. We’re spending billions each year to keep them out. Be glad you don’t have to deal with it…….for now. You will. Canada’s border is porous, too.
We just have to deal with it. Feds won’t let us deport them and spending $1.5B per year is not my idea of how I want to spend my tax dollars. So, they pay taxes.

avagreen on January 27, 2015 at 9:36 AM

BTW, he hasn’t lost a race in 14 years here in Texas, so,yes, his ideas were popular as we are the ones having to deal with the problem and the refusal of the Feds to help us keep them out.
It’s folks like you that helped elect Obama.

avagreen on January 27, 2015 at 9:44 AM

Prejudice and ignorance speaking.

You are referring to yourself, I assume?

We can’t stop the flow. We’re spending billions each year to keep them out. Be glad you don’t have to deal with it…….for now. You will. Canada’s border is porous, too.

What on earth are you talking about? The whole country has to deal with it, now. Canada’s border might be porous, but there is no problem w/ Canadian illegal immigrants flooding into our country. This is because Canada, unlike the backwards and impoverished countries to our south is a place where people want to move to, not flee.

We just have to deal with it. Feds won’t let us deport them and spending $1.5B per year is not my idea of how I want to spend my tax dollars. So, they pay taxes.

Once again, if TX rolls out the red carpet for illegal aliens, it will turn blue quickly as it is a matter of simple demographics.

People who understand the issue, don’t want that to happen.

Redstone on January 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM

It’s folks like you that helped elect Obama.

Folks who are opposed to illegal immigration? Really, that’s news to me!

Like I said, perhaps giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens is popular in TX, I don’t live there so I wouldn’t know.

However, what I said was that if it was so popular it wouldn’t have completely derailed his campaign for president in 2012.

Did you pay any attention to the debates, at all?

His “you don’t have a heart” comment was a total disaster for his campaign, you aren’t really going to deny that, are you?

Redstone on January 27, 2015 at 10:01 AM

Continue to be deaf and dumb. Texas is opposed to illegal immigration…..that’s why we spend billions each year to stop it, with no help from the Feds.

avagreen on January 27, 2015 at 10:42 AM

Continue to be deaf and dumb. Texas is opposed to illegal immigration…..that’s why we spend billions each year to stop it, with no help from the Feds.

avagreen on January 27, 2015 at 10:42 AM

The federal government not performing its duty does not therefore mean that illegal aliens should be entitled to in-state college tuition rates, that’s a very odd leap, to say the least.

If the alternative to being “deaf and dumb” is to have your bizarre form of reasoning, I think I will remain “deaf and dumb”, thank you very much!

Redstone on January 27, 2015 at 11:05 AM

Redstone on January 27, 2015 at 11:05 AM

Tell me, Redstone, what would you do with thousands coming across the border with no help from the Feds to keep them out and you’re not allowed to deport them, what would you do if it was your front lawn these illiterates (with no job skills) were camping on? Just continue to feed, house them, give them medical care?

Or, try to get them to support themselves?
Such as educating them so they could start supporting themselves?

We’re doing the best we can to survive down here. This is what we are up against. The Federal Government:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=134_1421153603&comments=1

Obama amnesty to impose billions in costs on states, lawsuit alleges

25 states detail financial burdens resulting from non-deportation order in lawsuit

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times – Sunday, January 11, 2015

President Obama’s new deportation amnesty will impose “billions of dollars in costs” on states, they told a federal court this week — including more than $130 for each Texas driver’s license issued to illegal immigrants under the policy.

More than 1,100 pages of documents submitted by Texas and two dozen other states suing to stop the amnesty detail the costs in depth, and include sworn affidavits from state officials, federal immigration officers and others arguing that the amnesty will increase illegal immigration, leaving the states with even bigger burdens…

avagreen on January 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM

BTW, Redstone, I’ve lived in 24 different states while growing up d/t my dad’s profession. And, several since then as an adult. I’ve had lots of experience with several different states’ peccadillo’s.

You remind me of a Northern Minneesotuh (Mountain Iron) 4th grade teacher in the late 50’s who seriously, seriously asked me (in the 4th grade) if Texas still used covered wagons to get around.

avagreen on January 27, 2015 at 11:30 AM

Tell me, Redstone, what would you do with thousands coming across the border with no help from the Feds to keep them out and you’re not allowed to deport them, what would you do if it was your front lawn these illiterates (with no job skills) were camping on? Just continue to feed, house them, give them medical care?

Or, try to get them to support themselves?
Such as educating them so they could start supporting themselves?

Certainly I wouldn’t give them any benefits that might entice them to stay. The goal shouldn’t be to integrate them into the state, unless you want TX to turn into California.

I would try and adopt laws like Arizona did, and take a more hard line stance.

Redstone on January 27, 2015 at 11:33 AM

Redstone on January 27, 2015 at 11:33 AM

Ok, so you’re willing to pay for them to live on your front lawn. Got it. We’re not. It’s just as obvious you haven’t had to face this problem or your answer would be different. Billions of dollars different.

Now, the federal immigration bill crafted by the Senate’s bipartisan “Gang of Eight,” including Arizona Republicans John McCain and Jeff Flake, proposes moving the nation toward comprehensive reform that incorporates securing the border, offering a way for illegal immigrants already in the country to become U.S. citizens, strengthening workplace enforcement and creating new visa programs..http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/21/arizona-immigration-role/2101779/

Doing that.

Over the past 17 years, Arizona voters, the state Legislature and Gov. Jan Brewer have supported measures that deny driver’s licenses and public benefits to illegal immigrants, fine employers who hire illegal immigrants and require illegal immigrants to pay out-of-state tuition for college. In 2010, the state passed the toughest immigration law in the nation with Senate Bill 1070, which requires law enforcement to check immigration status in certain situations.

Doing that, with the exception of the out-state-tuition.

This is the problem>>

Even Brewer has softened her rhetoric, saying she’d be willing to work with leaders on federal immigration reform as long as the border is secured first….
Biggs said he does not believe a majority of Arizona Republicans will support a proposal that includes amnesty for illegal immigrants.

“It’s always the elite who are out of touch,” he said. “When you have a porous border, amnesty is one of the craziest things you can do.

avagreen on January 27, 2015 at 11:58 AM

Obviously I don’t support what traitors McCain and Flake are doing in the US senate, I meant the bill that allowed law enforcement to check immigration status. Since then, illegal immigration to AZ has gone down.

The points that you are trying to make don’t make any sense.
How is giving higher education benefits to illegal aliens in any way cracking down on illegal immigration or dealing w/ the problem?

This link clearly exists in your head, but not anywhere else I am afraid.

Redstone on January 27, 2015 at 12:08 PM

Redstone on January 27, 2015 at 12:08 PM

It means they can pay taxes and stop being a drain on our tax system.
If you can’t see that, you’re lost. That was the subject.

avagreen on January 27, 2015 at 5:29 PM