One constant criticism I see of Rick Perry’s policy positions is his stance on immigration. I’ve seen commentary on Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere on the ‘net that he’s “soft” on the subject; that he favors ‘amnesty’ or something like it; these criticisms are absurd.
Let’s detail Perry’s position on illegal immigration:
He favors deporting illegal aliens who are arrested while committing crimes:
“The Obama administration has a ‘catch-and-release’ policy where nonviolent illegal aliens are released into the general public today,” Perry told patrons at a New Hampshire diner Tuesday morning. “My policy will be to detain and to deport every illegal alien that we apprehend. That is how we stop that issue.”
He proposed a law to prohibit ‘sanctuary cities’ in Texas, and allow law enforcement officers to ask questions about immigration status, while avoiding the problems of an Arizona-style immigration law:
“Texas owes it to the brave law enforcement officials, who put their lives on the line every day to protect our families and communities, to give them the discretion they need to adequately do their jobs”
He promises to secure the border within 12 months of becoming President:
“So putting that secure border in place with strategic fencing, with the boots on the ground, with the aviation assets, and then working with Mexico in particular, whether it’s putting sanctions against the banks, whether it’s working with them on security with Mexico, all of those together can make that country substantially more secure and our borders secure.”
He also realizes a vast border fence would be ineffective and cost-prohibitive, and recommends using “strategic fencing” (closing off certain areas to reduce the length of border to be patrolled), aerial surveillance using drone aircraft, and “boots on the ground”- National Guard troops and/or law enforcement officers to patrol the border.
Perry also came up with another idea- and a pretty creative one at that: Positioning webcams on the border, and live-feeding the video to the internet. People could watch, anytime, 24/7, and if the viewer spotted an illegal border crossing, they could phone in the sighting. I like this free-market approach as a supplement to border security, although (as the author points out at the link) it could be much better if a reward were offered for sightings.
Now, once greater security is in place on the border, sanctuary cities are eliminated, and deportation of illegals caught committing crimes is a fact, we still have a problem: What do we do about the millions of illegal immigrants already here? Pursuing as many as 15 million people, arresting, and deporting all of them is clearly impossible, from both a logistical and a budgetary standpoint.
This is where the “soft on illegal immigration” criticisms come into play:
Perry signed the Texas DREAM Act to allow the children of illegal immigrants to pay the in-state tuition rate at state colleges. Let’s be clear about this: It’s not “free education”, it’s not “education for illegals”, it’s a program for children who had no say in the decision to enter the country. As a condition of the program, the student must have attended high school in Texas for three years, and must apply for United States citizenship.
This represents a rational solution to a real problem: Illegal immigration is a drain on, among other things, our public welfare system. This program encourages the children of illegal immigrants to get an education (or a trade certificate, which is even more valuable these days), become citizens, and pay taxes, which is vastly superior to being a life-long drain on the welfare system.
Part of the border security issue is stemming the flow of people across the border. Perry’s answer to this is to distinguish between people who want to enter the country to work, and those who don’t, by issuing work visas. Perry is adamant that this is not a ‘path to citizenship’, which George W. Bush supported.
It’s amazing to me that some conservatives can ignore the opinions of a long-time border state governor. If a paramedic tells you to go to the hospital, you’d be wise to do so; if the ten-year governor of Texas has a solution to the problem of illegal immigration, we’d be wise to listen.
It should also be noted that the other long-time border state governor in the race, Governor Gary Johnson, has a similar plan with regard to illegal immigration- although Johnson’s plan doesn’t involve as much weaponry on the border (I’m a big fan of weapons).
And incidentally: Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose stance on illegal immigration borders the extreme, endorses Rick Perry. For the ultra-hardcore among us, this should be all the endorsement Perry’s plan requires.
I think we can safely dispense with the hype about Perry’s plan being “soft on illegal immigration”. It’s a reasonable, workable plan, based on his extensive experience with border issues.
an op-ed by State Rep. Ken Weyler Kingston Chairman, N.H. House, Finance Committee
Endorsing Gov. Perry
The polls have been pretty consistent for months now. Obama has reached a low that no president contemplating reelection has seen before him. We can be confident that the next president will be one of the Republican candidates that we have been seeing.
The liberal media is showing their bias like never before. Obama was their creation; an obscure candidate whose background was never fully explored. So they are pursuing their agenda with dedication. Destroy all threats to the incumbent. Whoever leads in the polls go after first. The debates are trivial and superficial. This is just a “gotcha” game to embarrass each of them.
Diane Sawyer led the news every 15 minutes about Rick Perry’s momentary lapse of memory as if it were disqualifying. She fails to realize that the majority of us have had similar experiences. Yet I don’t know of any of the rest of us who think there are 57 states. Why didn’t that get similar coverage? It is high time to look seriously at the Republican candidates. What are the backgrounds? What plans do they offer? What can they show for successful accomplishments?
These are the reasons I endorse Gov. Rick Perry for our next president. Here is a man who showed a willingness to make the supreme sacrifice for our country early in his life. Right out of college Rick joined the U.S. Air Force to become a pilot. Having similar experience, I know how challenging that program was. He later became a state representative in Texas, then the agriculture commissioner, then lieutenant governor. He is now one of the longest serving governors of Texas, a state that rarely reelects their governor.
He has shown us his plan for economic recovery, and what gives it credence is the job creation that has happened in Texas. Almost 40 percent of the last year’s new jobs were created in Texas.
I have been a long-time state representative in New Hampshire. We have studied what other states have done when we encounter a challenge in our state’s government. It is impressive how often the best solution has been done in Texas. They have led in performance budgeting, and welfare reform, and other areas of governing. Rick Perry has been an important part of that state’s government for decades.
Now that is a resume that deserves your approval. Let’s put accomplishments ahead of empty slogans that make no sense, like “This is the best country in the world and we need to change it!” Why wasn’t that questioned? Let’s stop paying attention to the media who would like nothing better than to destroy any opponent of Obama. Let’s do our own thinking and help our country to recover from the worst president in our history. We need good ideas, not empty slogans. Support Rick Perry in the primary, and for president. Some of these polls amount to “who have you heard about in the news lately?” Thank you.
Nancy, that’s wonderful! Do you also have a link to it?
I found the link: https://bit.ly/sDh1ED
The conservative approach to fixing illegal immigration from our southern border is all wrong. We are being offered two false choices. The first false choice is the liberal model, what Obama is doing today. The second false choice is the Perry plan (insert other conservative plans.)
The third choice that nobody is even considering is to turn our southern border into an economic zone. We can do this by;
1: Relocate half of all U.S. factories built in China to southern border states. This kills two birds with one stone: It reduces U.S. dollars in China’s GDP being used to build up their military. Secondly, it places jobs on the border for mexican nationals, as opposed to middle America.
2: By building factories in border states, U.S. collects taxes on the labor force, and companies.
3: Mexican nationals would be required to cross into the U.S. daily. This means they would live in Mexico, spending their income there, improving the Mexican economy. There would be no reason for them to illegally cross into the United States. They can go home to their families daily. This would increase mexican border towns less dependent on drug cartel money.
4: Implement the Perry plan for monitoring the border, and building strategic fencing. Basically, block off the border to manned crossing zones.
5: And finally, declare war on the drug cartels, by asking NATO (yes, America is under attack) to join the U.S. in conducting operations in Mexico to eradicate (kill) drug kingpins and torch their plantations.