On Friday, Gov. Rick Perry again defended his position in favor of in-state tuition for illegal aliens:
“Texas had a decision to make: Are we going to kick these young people to the curb and pay for their existence in our state through social programs or some other type of government dollars — up to and including incarceration?” Perry said. “Or are we going to require that they pursue United States citizenship and pay full in-state tuition?”
Perry added, “Are we gonna create tax wasters or are we gonna create tax payers?”
But he doesn’t seem understand the bill he signed (a sense that’s reinforced by his reference to “full in-state tuition” — in-state tuition is the opposite of “full” tuition). After an illegal alien graduates from, say, UT (which he could do even without receiving the taxpayer-funded in-state-tuition discount, of course), he’s still not going to become a taxpayer, in the sense that Perry’s using, meaning he’d be working in a white-collar field using his degree in Comparative Queer Studies. And that’s because he’s still an illegal alien, so it’s illegal to hire him. While a landscaper might not ask too many questions, a firm hiring people with college degrees will. What squares this circle — which Perry offers as a central rationale for his support of the in-state tuition bill — is the requirement that beneficiaries “pursue United States citizenship,” meaning they would then be able to work legally and generate all those taxes. But this presupposes that Congress would pass the real DREAM Act, an amnesty for kids brought here by their parents. But Perry is opposed to the federal DREAM Act.
To repeat: Perry’s support for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants is premised on the passage of federal legislation that he opposes. Is he befuddled or mendacious? Neither one is encouraging.
"using his degree in Comparative Qu eer Studies"? What is wrong with you, Krikorian?
You are skipping over the part about that 1% of qualifying students pursuing citizenship. You do not understand Perry's position, but instead of trying to understand it, all you have done is throw rocks at Perry for what all but 3 or 4 of our state representatives cast a vote for saying they believed it was a better idea than not. Now we are a border state, Mr. Krikorian. If you imagine that means we are all politically correct on border and immigration issues, then you need to pull your head out and come up for a little fresh air.
Perry opposes the federal DREAM act but supported the Texas in-state tuition for qualifying illegal immigrants. There's your starting place. Open your mind a little and investigate the differences.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust to be clear, you don't really believe that we are going to come to the place where we actually deport every illegal alien in the United States, do you, Krikorian?
Somewhere between granting everyone amnesty and the foolish idea that we could actually deport every last illegal immigrant in the country lies the compromise position that we are bound to reach in dealing with this situation in the future. That is, if we ever return to the ability of polarized extremes on the issue being able to break this Mexican standoff we've got going between ideologies.
In a world where Congress functions like it is supposed to, reaching a do-able compromise is the name of the game - not this ideological tug of war going on by the extreme left and the extreme right. In that world where our government actually comes together to work out differences that help the nation scale obstacles and move forward, it will be the 1% of students who have taken advantage of our in-state tuition who will be productive workers and taxpayers. I would rather have that potential than a permanent underclass of illegal workers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow does requiring illegal immigrants to pay out-of-state tuition rates create a "permanent underclass of illegal workers"?
If the 1% must attend college (and presumably receive some amnesty) in order to become productive workers and taxpayers, doesn't it follow that the 99% who don't attend college will not become productive workers and taxpayers?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am a person of faith, Buster, so I believe the poor will always be with us. But I also believe in the biblical principle of "leave the corners of your field" for the poor to glean. It will take the work effort for the poor to glean those corners of our fields, but for those willing to work it, there will be charitable provision they can work for. Some won't work, but those who will are going to be sustained by the charitable corners we are leaving for them to take advantage of. No one is giving the whole field to charity - or even half. This isn't a redistribution of wealth, but the acknowledgment that people can be helped to climb out of poverty through opportunity to glean those charitable corners.
It is the sound principle of charitable balance that I believe was struck by the Texas legislators.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDonnaDiorio, How Christian of you to be generous with other people's money.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, brother. That's the best you got?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe federal government dumped these kids on the states and said "There, now they're [the illegals] your problem."
But I guess you would prefer that those kids learn the lesson that American is not a land of opportunity even if you work had for a goal so that you can point to them and say "Look, they don't acheive anything." How much better for people like you, and Korkorian to just let those kids who know they have no chance at being successful be recruited by the drug cartels with the lure of big money, as was reported in the San Antonio newpaper.
Ignore the fact that as a nation, our federal government decided via the SCOTUS, that you cannot punish children for the crimes of the parents. Ignore the fact that by the time these kids, what few of them there are, have graduated from high school, the states have already invested over $100,000.00 in them. Ignore the fact that kids who attend universities and colleges are less prone to social crimes. Ignore that no one, from FDR to Obama, has ever sought to deport young adults who have committed no crime.
And ignore the fact that Janet Napolitano recently testified before Congress that yes, we do in fact, give work permits, and ITINs to certain illegals.
The SCOTUS has ruled that no child of an illegal is entitled to a benefit greater than what is given to a U.S. citizen or legal alien. Consequently, the criterion for the child of an illegal to attend a Texas state university is much more rigid than that for a kid from New Jersey. Three years in a Texas high school, graduating, compared to no Texas high school graduation requirement for the kid from New Jersey; residency for three years, compared to the 12 contiguous months requirement for the kid from New Jersey. Oh, and for admission to the premier universities of Texas, Texas A & M and the University of Texas, there is that whole top 10% of the graduating class requirement for these kids. Not so for the kid from New Jersey.
The federal goverment pretty much told the states these are our kids and we need to deal with them. If you want to lobby to have the laws changed, be my guest.
And maybe Korkorian can start railing on the at least 10 other states that also give in-state tuition to the kids of illegals.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe 1% of illegal alien students pursuing citizenship? You just admitted 99% of the tuition subsidy for illegal alien students is wasted money.
Comparative Q* Studies majors won't do landscaping work, anyway. They might get a callus.
* Commenters can't use words used by the NRO writers? Huh.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe 1% is the actual percentage of university students who are enrolled and paying in-state tutition under this provision.
The pursuit of citizenship is a requirement for the in-state rates as well as three years of residency in Texas as well as being a graduate of a TX public high-school.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusemark your starting to sound like norquist in his little slap fight w/ Tom Coburn. Perry has come out against amnesty, he has called for more boots on the borders but you want to crucify him for signing legislation that almost the entire Texas legislature voted for? there have been many many elections since he signed that bill and apparently the voters in Texas were okay w/ it. as staunch a believer in federalism that Perry is you should be able to sleep at night.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow does "more boots on the border" square with supporting in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, a flagrant inducement to illegal immigration if there ever was one? Not only should every state in the union nix in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, it should bar these children from attending public schools, including colleges and universities. Failure to do so proves that US elites simply don't take the problem of illegal immigration seriously, and to some degree, support this criminal act.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Supreme Court requires public K-12 education for illegals.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHmm, maybe it's a 'if you can make it through the tougher standards, it's a reward!' kind of thought.
"Coming soon on ABC, watch as poor illegals risk life and limb to make it across the alligator filled moat to earn in state tuitition rates! It will be bigger than Wipeout!"
Yeah, the above is sarcasm. I like a lot of Perry's stuff, but this illegal thing, it just isn't flying.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBarring a constitutional amendment or a change in Supreme Court precedent, the states can't exclude illegals from public schools. The case is Plyler v. Doe. Look it up.
The elites aren't serious about dealing with our illegal immigration problem. They never have been. They can't be made more serious by squabbling about instate tuition for illegals. That simply isn't where the rubber hits the road. The whole conversation is absurd.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy don't you tell that to the federal courts which have mandated the enrollment of all children in Texas regardless of immigration status for years. The in-state tuition program was adapted mainly as a way of recapturing at least a little of the investment Texans were being forced to make against their will.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIncidentally, being here illegally is a civil offense. Weirdly, it's a criminal offense if you're caught in the act of crossing the border but if it's just a presence criminal penalties don't apply.
As for the in-state tuition law being an inducement to cross the border, you have got to be kidding. Do you think anyone is coming over here with the idea of getting a residential tuition charge at least three years down the line? What planet do you live on? It sure doesn't sound like you live in a border state, or you would know better.
The obsession here at NRO with in-state tuition is bordering on the absurd.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is coming from the same Mark Krikorian who cooked up a completely bogus story using doctored data to bash Texas for creating jobs? Give it a rest.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's the amateurish criticism of the report (by failed Calfornia politician Chuck DeVore) that was bogus.
The report by Dr. Camarota is highly credible and proves that 81% of the jobs under Perry went to immigrants, including many illegal aliens.
Another Perry fail.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDREAM Act or no, an employer could petition for the prospective worker to adjust status to H-1B (a 9B2 ineligibility wouldn't affect an alien already present in the U.S., and anyway could easily be waived). That's step one on the path to citizenship.
Regardless, this issue seems to me largely symbolic -- the numbers involved can't be that large. Right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnother item that seems to have tripped up the understanding here is the contention that Perry must be wrong that the illegal alien won't contribute to the tax base. Right or wrong, from a purely state point of view, that person WILL be contributing to the tax base.
Texas doesn't receive its income from income taxes, but from property and sales taxes, which, if we buy the premise that the well educated illegal alien will have a higher income, will indeed produce a higher level of taxes for the state.
I really don't understand why this particular item is generating such heat. Being on the "put in a moat with alligators" side of the debate myself, it just doesn't make any sense at all to critique this item of all things. Especially in THIS presidential election season!
Can we start to focus on the REAL issues that are killing us now? I think it may be more important to find a candidate that has the ability to reverse the path our country is in.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse