Perry's immigration stance

CedarParkFan

CedarParkFan

1,000+ Posts
Perry's attempts to portray himself as tough on illegal immigration is a total failure. The simple fact that he actually favors providing in-state tuition breaks for illegals, is a perfect illustration. In his warped viewpoint, those here illegally actually get a lower tuition rate than out-of-staters who are legal U.S. citizens. Wow! It's difficult to defend such a position. His argument that a "person's last name should not restrict their educational endeavors" is patently absurd! Since when do we reward those that circumvent the law? Even if one argues that colleges should be open to illegals, it's hard to justify providing them a tuition break that legal citizens do not enjoy. This hits close to home for me because my sister from California had to pay more to attend a Texas college than someone who is not even a legal resident.

It's time we start fining the hell out of the companies that hire illegals. We don't need to encourage more. But, it's an uphill battle because the Republicans (most of them) want to appease businesses and the Democrats want the Hispanic votes. Does that suggest that Hispanics condone illegal immigration because such large numbers of illegals are Hispanic? I would hope not. If that is indeed the case, it speaks volumes.

flag.gif
 
For me, this is almost important enough that it could be a single issue that determines my vote. I think we are at something of a precipice. There are enough hispanic bodies in the US now that if all of them are allowed to achieve citizen status and subsequent voting rights, we will NEVER get meaningful immigration reform through in the future. Their voting block is already almost at the point that no politician is willing to incur their wrath. One more wave of short cut legalization and its over for immigration reform.

Also, building fences is a ridiculous answer. Its the job draw. Fine the businesses and the jobs will dry up, and the immigrants go home on their own (for the most part).

I've never understood why he has gotten such a pass in Texas on this issue. I don't agree with TP on much but this is one issue that could sway me, if I felt they were going to actually put some real teeth into new immigration policy focusing on business violations.
 
The only thing that is surprising is that any of your people are surprised. Perry has been bankrolled by some of the state's biggest beneficiaries of illegal immigrant labor for his entire political career. Of course he isn't going to do anything about illegal immigration.

If you really wanted to stop it, you need a two-pronged approach. First, you need the fence - gotta make it harder to come in. Second, you need to police businesses that hire illegal immigrants. However, it can't be done solely by law enforcement. We already have that, and many politicians would simply choose not to enforce the law. What you need is a civil cause of action. In other words, you need to sick lawyers on them. Grant taxpayer standing to sue companies that hire or subcontract illegal aliens. The companies should get hit with penalties of $1,000.00 per day, per illegal alien and should have to reimburse the government for all health and education costs associated with the immigrant's presence. Do that, and the problem goes away tomorrow. Give the plaintiffs a piece of the action - a little like the qui tam action.
 
Or treat it like tax cheats. Fine companies that hire illegal immigrants. And if an individual turns in a company for hiring illegals, that individual collects a percentage of the gov't proceeds from the fine.
 
It should not be an Hispanic voting issue. Making it so is akin to saying that Hispanics are against immigration enforcement based on the nationality of a large percent of illegals. Again, fine the hell out of businesses that hire illegals. It's the only thing that will work effectively.

Perry is all but finished as a serious contender. He has been exposed for what he is: a politician that tries to play both sides of the fence. I've always pictured him as weak on immigration. This just verifies my past suspicions.
 
Okay, this is totally off the subject, but I had just assumed that the picture in your signature was a young Michael Savage, because of the quotation and the beard and all. Nope, Waylon Jennings. Rest in peace, Waylon.
 
No, one is not necessarily an idiot for being Christian, or religious. Well, for most religions....

Most, if not a vast, vast majority of the right-wing evangelicals take hard-line social stands, including their (imo) sub-optimal societal policy on immigrant education. I would think a Christian, a real Christian (which many right-wing evangelicals are not) would be more concerned with helping this cohort rather than denying/making more difficult a post-secondary education. Why would they do this? Other than pettiness, vindictiveness, latent (or not so latent) racism, why? Teach the person how to fish. Do all we can to help them become productive, contributing members of our society.

But no, we have typical rants against doing just that.

First, let it be known that I wrote "Christians" (in quotes), not Christians, and second, I do realize that my ire is aimed at a sub-group of that faith, the right-wing evangelical, most of them being of the fundamentalist variety. I don't mean to tar the thoughtful Christian in my screed, so in that respect you are correct, but my objections are valid when aimed at the right-wing evangelical.
 
We have a terrible problem with illegal immigration. It is tearing us apart. People disagree about what the problem is, or what a solution should be, so no coherent policy holds up. Whether offering college education to illegals is: 1) worsening the problem by sweetening the deal for even more illegals to come here; or 2) helping the problem by educating the illegals already here, so as not to be any more of a drag on the system than they are already, is a debatable question, with strong points on either side. (I actually just barely come out on the same side you do.)

However, just because I believe that Jesus Christ lived and died for my sins, and that this world was created and now is maintained by God, that does not automatically give me a clear position on this fairly nuanced issue. So, when you are debating this point, which has no overt religious aspect to it, and you introduce the argument that Christians who happen to be on the other side are vicious and hypocritical to their Christianity for their position--when, I take it that you do not even subscribe to their values in the first place--that seems to reveal your quick trigger reaction to want to say something ugly about Christians.

Analytically, you are saying: "You have in the past taken position A. I thought and still think you are wrong. Now, though, your past position A would help me in my argument against you, so I want to use it to call you a hypocrite and shame you into agreeing with me on position B (while I still won't admit that A is correct)."

As to the teaching to fish point, it is true that most evangelical Christians are conservative in their economic viewpoints. Again, there are two (at least) diametrically opposed viewpoints on what would be best for all Americans, including poor Americans. While you may disagree with it or not think it is optimal for what you want, the belief that everyone does better when government does less is a legitimate, coherent political and economic belief. What a conservative would say is that if all the money and taxes that have been poured down the rathole of social programs had been redirected to allow business prosperity, our poor would be far, far ahead of where they are now with a nanny state. Again, I understand that you disagree; I'm only saying that you must admit that it is a debatable, valid disagreement.

So, again, just because you happen to be a Christian does not direct you to a political position on this current event/political matter. So, when you happen to disagree with a Christian, and come up with the "hypocrisy" card--again, not hypocrisy from something you believe, but hypocrisy from something you reject!--you seem to be the one injecting the religious interpretation into the issue, and not in a nice way.
 
IMO putting the Texas Dream act in place is just to get a step closer to amnesty which is the ultimate goal.

BTW
Federal Law Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623 states:
“an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State... for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit.”


I guess technically the Texas Dream act is in compliance as it is written since anyone who lived in and attended school here for 3 years prior to applying is considered a resident

so someone from calif or Ok who moves here and lives here for 3 years before applying will get resident status, right?
I am asking. i do not know

I know you are supposed to get a Texas driver's license within 30 days of moving in state as a permanent to be considered legal.
 
Being a christian doesn't automatically dictate that we should condone policies built upon a foundation formed around an illegal act.

People pay taxes with the hope that the money would be used wisely, and not on questionable and controversial issues. I do not believe it is "un-christian" to desire that the government allocate money for legitimate causes and not, in this case, provide subsidies to educate someone here illegally.
 
Well according to when I went to college was there not an ethics or part of the papers application that all of the above information was correct.

Last I checked there was not a box to check saying they are illegally in the country, they would have to check Visa status.

In effect they have to lie on their application to get in state tuition, so does that not make their application null and void?

Forget what they even pay, they should not get admittance because they would have to lie one way or another to be accepted.

Maybe I am wrong under citizenship is their a box, illegally in this country?
 
Mean spirited?

When you start talking like that, in vague terms, you are on thin ice. Nevermind that there is nothing mean about suggesting that an illegal should not get preferential treatment meant for members of the state. Is it mean to point out that they are illegal?

**** that noise.

Your position is preposterous.

End the war on drugs. Transfer some manpower to policing business that use illegal labor. Apply the hammer when scofflaws are found.

Giving in-state status is like saying we are going to forget about illegal status FOR THIS GROUP because they are on some level connected with actual citizens who share their language and customs, citizens who we must assume are holding to furthering the interests of their putative cultural/ethnic group rather than the interests of the state or the nation. No doubt that kind of thing happens with citizens, but should non-citizens be the focus of such a give-away?

We can't discuss this issue unless people fess up and square.
 
The two best ways to slow down illegal immigration are:
a) punish employers for hiring them
b) take away benefits and tax breaks

$4.2 billion in refundable credits, primarily the additional child tax credit, were paid to illegals via taxes last year. An example on a tax return would be a person that filed head of household making $26,000 in wages and claiming 3 dependents. After subtracting $8,400 for filing status and $14,600 for 4 exemptions, the taxable inocme is $3,000 which comes to $300 in taxes. The child tax credit of $1,000 per child eliminates the tax and results in a $2,700 refundable credit. Now it's true that SS and Medicare taxes are taken out of the workers pay, but $7.15% of $26,000 is $1,859. So to those who claim the worker is contributing to the system, no he is not.

The cost of educating a child in Texas is high. I don't know how high, but I suppose it's at least $3000-$4000 per year for every student.

And then there's the argument that illegals take the jobs nobody else will. That's true, but only because the supply of workers is now so great, compensation for blue collar work has plummeted.
 
If I'm not mistaken, several years back (maybe 10 or 12?) there was a woman who held a substantial political office in Texas and then it was found out that she lied on her resume about a diploma she never attained. Similarly, a candidate for the ND head coaching job (O'Leary?) was selected and then dismissed when it was discovered he lied on his resume.

Using Perham's logic, I suppose neither of these people should have lost their position, but in fact been allowed to keep it with a bonus on top of the stipulated salary. After all, since they didn't meet the stated qualifications/standards, they should have been given preferential treatment over others; you know, to make it more fair.

I think O'Leary should have sued Notre Dame on the basis it was unchristian to dismiss him solely on the basis that he lied about his credentials in order to obtain the desired goal. Illegal aliens, or should I say undocumented immigrants, should be allowed to move to the front of the line ahead of citizens with legal status. I don't know why anyone can't comprehend this. Perry, unlike Notre Dame, clearly made the ethical choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top