No Fence? No Way!
No fence? No way!
One of the major Republican candidates has weighed in on illegal immigration and the border. He said no to a border fence. Who says no to a border fence?
Rick Perry.
Perry was campaigning in New Hampshire when a voter asked him about the issue of a border fence. Perry, who many critics have said favors amnesty and is soft on illegal immigration, said he opposed the border fence. He said, “If you build a thirty foot fence, the 35 foot ladder business gets real good.”
What?
If you enforce the criminal laws, the criminal defense lawyer business gets real good too. Does that mean we should not enforce our criminal laws?
That is one of the most ridiculous things a major candidate has said in a while.
We have fourteen million unemployed Americans and between ten and twenty million illegals. Not all of the illegals are working but a lot of them are. If we build a fence and slow down the flow of illegals, it might well help Americans keep their jobs.
Slowing the flow of illegals will also help the Border States. These states are overwhelmed with the costs the federal government imposes on the states. States are required to provide medical care for illegals. They are required to provide public school education for the children of illegals. Illegals are incarcerated for violating laws and the states and counties are required to foot the bill for them.
Perry has not been strong on illegal immigration. He helped get illegals in state tuition at Texas colleges and the Texas Tea Party groups have expressed their disappointment because Perry refused to help get a law passed that would make it illegal for Texas cities to declare themselves “sanctuary cities” and refuse to cooperate with Federal Immigration authorities.
Illegal immigration is a huge issue for the Tea Party. Many in the GOP believe they have to pander on this issue otherwise they will never get the Hispanic vote.
That is non-sense.
The border is not a Hispanic issue; it is a national security issue. A nation that does not control its borders ceases to exist. It simply is beyond belief that groups like Al-Qaeda have not smuggled terrorists through our southern border and probably smuggled weapons. We can only hope they have not smuggled a weapon of mass destruction through the border already.
Rick Perry has been a breakthrough candidate for the GOP. He announced and immediately he shot to the top. But there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed. Illegal immigration is one of them.
Even Mitt Romney has come out stronger in opposition to illegal immigration.
Many people like Perry. He is very charismatic and offers some down home Texas solutions. But illegal immigration is a huge issue for conservatives and Perry’s softness on this topic could be his undoing.
He has some explaining to do.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by C & S Buss on
-
I am guessing that Judson is not living in a boarder state. There is no need for a fence. We need our military to guard the boarder line, our laws to be enforced, the anchor babies stopped, welfare, free education stopped, IRS additional child credit stopped, the Dream Act stopped. Heck, how about we all just enforce all our laws in every sector, oh and replace congress and the president.
-
Permalink Reply by sharon ostwinch on -
I don't like Perry on several issues and I sure don't care that is smooth talking and smiling if his stance on these issues is still bad. This isnt' about looks or style it is about following the constitution and laws of this country. Immigration is one big law that many are not following. It is a big problem and a threat to all Americans. He needs to change his view or live by it and lose. Also his views of muslim/islam are not to my liking either. Islam is one real threat and it is best to see it and deal with it now.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Coles on
-
If we look at Perry's total positions and actions on the border & illegal immigration issue we find that he is walking a very difficult line...as a politician he has legitimate Hispanic voters as well as non-Hispanic voters to appease...and business interests and very Conservtive citizens' interests to accommodate...
My understanding of his position is this: 1. unless the Federal government takes strong action that will force the existing population of invaders out of the country there's not a lot state governments can do on their own.
2. States have no authority over the actual border...that's Federal property and is under Federal control...no state may legally put up a fence or barrier inside the Federal border zone.
3. One inch north of the Federal border zone is sovereign state territory. The states may decide who gets to live inside that sovereign territory and if a state governor & legsilature want to erect an anti-entrance barrier or otherwise limit access to their territory they may.
4. The reality on the ground in Texas is that much of the border area does not easily lend itself to fencing. Perry has stated numerous times that if the money is available he would recommend to the legislature expenditures to build fence sections where they could be useful.
5. Texas has a large and effective Army National Guard, Air National Guard, force of Texas Rangers and a state defense force; all of which could be used to guard against unlawful entry into the areas north of the Federal border zone...and Perry has said that if funds are available he would use the Guard system to protect the TEXAS border.
The idea that Perry is a Progressive is nonsensical...the idea that Perry is some sort of globalist because he was in the audience at the 2007 Bilderberger meeting is beyond laughable...audience members at Bilderberg meetings listen but do not participate beyond asking questions of the panelists following the various presentations. I know two German editorial writers who've been in the audience at those meetings...one from the Bild Zeitung and the other from the Frankfurter Allegemein ... By European standards, these are not far-Left newspapers nor are my newspaper friends themselves socialists or even Leftists...they're part of the anti-EU German nationalist movement...just being invited to attend in observer status means nothing...but it was a useful visit to Germany as Perry brought back more than a dozen major contracts -- for businesses to move to Texas and with re-sellers of Texas-made or grown goods & food products.
I'm still not sure who I'll back this time but unless something really damaging comes up Perry looks to be a strong contender for my support during the primaries...
One final thought: whoever gets the Republican nod next August must get our votes...Obama and his coterie of savants must go, as must as many LeftDems in the Congress as we can possibly defeat and drive from our government.
-
Permalink Reply by chris brenner on -
" He helped get illegals in state tuition at Texas colleges and the Texas Tea Party groups have expressed their disappointment because Perry refused to help get a law passed that would make it illegal for Texas cities to declare themselves “sanctuary cities” and refuse to cooperate with Federal Immigration authorities ".
TEA PARTIERS... PLEASE WAKE UP WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES.. S C A R E Y P E R R Y IS NOT WHAT THE TEA PARTY WANTS! HOW DARE HIM HELP ILLEGALS [WHO DON'T HAVE ANY INTEREST IN PROTECTING OUR CONSTITUTION]-- LET ALONE USE TAX DOLLARS FOR IN STATE TUITION FOR ILLEGALS.
-
Permalink Reply by chris brenner on
-
" He helped get illegals in state tuition at Texas colleges and the Texas Tea Party groups have expressed their disappointment because Perry refused to help get a law passed that would make it illegal for Texas cities to declare themselves “sanctuary cities” and refuse to cooperate with Federal Immigration authorities ".
TEA PARTIERS... PLEASE WAKE UP WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES.. S C A R E Y P E R R Y IS NOT WHAT THE TEA PARTY WANTS! HOW DARE HIM HELP ILLEGALS [WHO DON'T HAVE ANY INTEREST IN PROTECTING OUR CONSTITUTION]-- LET ALONE USE TAX DOLLARS FOR IN STATE TUITION FOR ILLEGALS.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Coles on
-
Here's the factual skinny on the Texas law allowing in-state tuition for illegal aliens...but first, the sancutary cities issue: it is the Hispanic lobby in the legislature that prevented that bill from becoming law...Texas a strong legislature, weak governor system...This Hispanic lobby is formidable in Texas as Hispanics make up a full third of the overall population and in some parts of Texas they are the majority population...the Anglo group in the legislature does not have a serious lobbying body to support it.
Now for the tuition issue: this is not an issue over which states have much control -- and now 22 states have similar or even more lenient laws, and the rest of the states don't even ask about nationality -- only state of residence for determing in-state or out-of-state tuition. An interesting side note: all 18-year old males must register with the Selective Service to eligible for financial aid or any kind and the 'Draft Board' doesn't ask about nationality, either....see below.
Illegal immigrants entering Texas' higher education system are direct beneficiaries of a 1982 Supreme Court decision, Plyler vs. Doe. Parents in Tyler sued after the state began charging tuition for illegal immigrant children. The court ruled that Texas and the rest of the country must educate illegal immigrant children free of charge in public schools.
Illegal immigrant students were never barred from enrolling in Texas colleges, but the higher tuition price tag for non-state residents often meant they couldn't afford to attend.
The Texas law passed in 2001 providing in-state tuition and aid to illegal immigrant students and other immigrants who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents does not specifically identify illegal immigrant students. It instead defines Texas residency and eligibility for in-state tuition and state financial aid. The bill required students to:
Reside in Texas with a parent while attending high school in Texas.
Graduate from a high school or receive a GED in Texas.
Live in Texas for the three years leading up to graduation or receiving a GED.
Provide colleges and universities a signed affidavit indicating intent to apply for permanent resident status as soon as they are able to do so.
The students may qualify for state aid on the same grounds as legal residents of the state, per the Plyler decision. They also may qualify for institutional aid from specific universities and colleges from private & public scholarship & grant sources.
Since 2001 when the law passed, about 22,000 illegal immigrant students have enrolled at Texas public colleges & universities at a cost of about $33-million in tuition reductions.
The program is not popular with non-Hispanics and with some Hispanic citizens’ groups, as well. Perry has supported the law based on pressure from within the Texas Legislature.
-
Permalink Reply by Trish on
-
It seems to me Perry doesn't think Illegal immigration is a threat to the U.S. It threatens our security as a nation, our unemployed, our social programs, over crowded prisons, extra expense to our school systems, the collapse of our health care system, the collapse of medicare that millions have paid into over a life time and will not have access to. Yes, that will include me! And I'm damn mad about it!
-
Permalink Reply by Jerry NEOhio on
-
His reasoning is that once Agenda 21 take over the immigration issue will be gone.
Rick Perry tied to Agenda 21: Selling Texas to foreigners, jabs Oba...
-
Permalink Reply by Katie Kalpin on -
Ohhhhh good another idiot running under the GOP ticket. Maybe instead of a third party...we need to just kick out the GOP and re-name it the the TNP (The new party) That way any of these idiots LIKE Perry or Romney can't run. They will have to admit that they are Demo's. BTW that's why they are leading right now. They are getting the Liberal Votes. Now that's good and Bad at the same time. I know you all understand why this is Good but let me tell you why it is bad...if the liberals like them...THERE is something VERY wrong with them! That's all I have to say about that one. I am glad that I am getting to know this ding dong better! :)
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Green on
-
I still say that our nation's illegal immigration problem is solvable for a lot less money than the cost of a border fence:
Step 1: Put out the word that all persons in the country without authorization have 120 days to leave without penalty or interference.
Step 2: Immediately move to deputize all American citizens who own property that physically abuts the US border.
Step 3: Provide federal grants for those landowners to hire private security, and put up big signs in English, Spanish, and Arabic that face the border...and maybe even broadcast messages in several languages that warn: "Trespassers will be shot! Deadly Force Authorized" Then do it! (If back-up is requied for an invasion en masse, well-armed national and state guard forces should be stationed close enough to provide timely tactical support.)
Step 4: All costs associated with the detainment, detention, determination (of identity, country of origin and citizenship status) and deportation of individuals found to be in the country illegally after the 120-day grace period will be DEDUCTED from the foreign aid normally sent to the individual's native land. (As the nations from which illegals "flow" depend on the foreign aid we provide, I'll bet they would try a lot harder to keep THEIR citizens at home in the future...ya think?
Result: Problem solved without America having to build a 30-foot fence from Boca Chica to the Pacific Ocean.
I know, I know. The leftists will say that this type of effort would be inhumane and a violation of people's civil rights. Wrong!! Illegal trespassers from another country do not HAVE the rights of American citizens...and they will have been given ample warning of deadly force enforcement procedures. (Tell the ACLU and La Raza, etc., to go take a flying one at themselves...or leave with the illegals if they are so concerned about their "welfare.") Bottom line: It's still not about "race," it's about CRIME, protecting our national sovereignty and "providing for the common defense" of our citizenry, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Drastic times require drastic measures!!
-
Permalink Reply by NWBill on -
I like it, Bob! if I could, I'd put you in charge of this ... and I'd also give you a few divisions of Army troops as backup - ARMED troops, with weapons and drone tech to assist citizens in guarding the border areas.
Well done!
-
Permalink Reply by NWBill on
-
They will with a Commander-in-Chief who truly understands and respects the military - like a Bachmann, or a Perry, or a Palin. And, as far as I'm concerned, on-duty military should go around armed at all times - on base or off. This country needs to see its' men and women in uniform, armed, and presenting themselves to the public as the warriors they are. And if anyone has a problem with it ... well, they were probably planning on committing a crime anyway - and were hindered by the sight of a soldier or sailor or Marine or Air Force pilot with a standard sidearm.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
