Home

Yes I do. They don't do a damned thing. They give them all the free stuff they want including instate collage. But my state id so puking liberal it hurts.

What I want to know is what Perry will do if he is POTUS. Then it is a federal problem and he will be it head of the federal government!

ball neatly served back into the front court Scott, reasonable question in my view.

It needs two more 9s 9% additional tax for union members and 9% on top of that for those who work for unions. Thus union members would pay 18% income tax and those that work for unions would pay 27% income tax.

If Obama can give special deals for his union buddies in ObamaCare we can give them speceal deals when we take power.

Thank you. I am NOT anti Perry but it is something I have not seen addressed.

With Cain there is some doubt on his 2nd amendment stance and with Perry there is the immigration question. I would like to see both issued fully addressed before I vote.

Perry's immigration stances draw fire, support
By JOE HOLLEY, HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

On a Sunday in June 2001, the first-year governor of Texas signed legislation allowing undocumented immigrants to attend Texas colleges and universities at in-state tuition rates instead of paying international fees. Supporters of the legislation called it the Texas Dream Act.

On a June morning 10 years later, that same governor convened a special session of the Texas Legislature and urged lawmakers to pass a bill that would outlaw so-called "sanctuary cities," places where police are not allowed to ask the immigration status of people they detain. Hispanic lawmakers, most of them Democrats, considered the bill a personal affront; they warned the governor that he risked a backlash among Hispanic voters. The sanctuary city measure, which already had failed during the regular session, failed again, due in larger measure to opposition from powerful Texas business interests.

Those two efforts - one supported by a fledgling governor, the other by a man on the verge of running for president - represent Gov. Rick Perry's shifting position on immigration issues during his 10-plus years in office.

Spurned border fence

Like his predecessor George W. Bush, Perry has built a reputation over the years for taking a relatively moderate approach to immigration issues. He appointed a Hispanic secretary of state and the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court. He called the idea of a border fence "nonsense" and resisted efforts to emulate Arizona's strict approach to illegal immigration. Those positions helped him attract 38 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2010.

More recently, though, he has moved steadily rightward. As he travels about the country courting GOP primary voters, including tea partyers, the question is whether he has moved far enough to satisfy their concerns.

Perry still supports the 2001 law he signed, but he opposes the federal Dream Act.

"The governor signed this legislation back in 2001, believing that, if a young individual who was brought here through no fault of his or her own is willing to rely on a good education instead of government services, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to pay for a good college education so they can contribute to society," spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said.

Perry the presidential campaigner usually does not mention the Texas law, although a New Hampshire newspaper reporter asked him about it last month.

"To punish these young Texans for their parents' actions is not what America has always been about," Perry said.

Signed Voter Id Act

He fields questions regularly about his general position on illegal immigration and invariably highlights his get-tough approach, maintaining that the federal government must secure a dangerously porous border before the talk turns to immigration reform. He has called for Predator drones to be deployed along the border for surveillance, and his political ads have featured him touring the border with a local sheriff and warning about drug smugglers and gang violence.

Perry also signed a Voter ID Act this year, despite opposition from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and other advocacy groups denouncing the law as an attempt to disenfranchise minority voters.

The federal Dream Act failed to win passage in December 2010. Although Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., reintroduced the legislation in May, its chances have dimmed since Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. The bill would give young, undocumented immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for at least five years an opportunity for citizenship through college or military service.

"Regarding federal Dream Act legislation, it is irresponsible to be considering federal immigration reforms until the border is secure," Frazier said. "Without border security, any efforts to reform immigration will be useless and ineffective."

Perry also opposes the policy the White House announced last week that could lead to the suspension of deportation proceedings against tens of thousands of immigrants who have committed no crime other than violating immigration law.

"This administration continues to leave the door open for rampant illegal immigration by refusing to allocate the resources necessary to secure our borders and selectively enforcing our nation's immigration laws," Frazier said.

Some misgivings voiced

Although the Dream Act, federal or otherwise, is anathema for tea party voters, Perry's focus on border security seems to have tempered their concerns about his moderate past, despite misgivings expressed by some prominent tea party bloggers in Iowa and New Hampshire.

"There are mixed feelings about him in the tea party," said George Rodriguez, a retired government employee who serves as president of the San Antonio Tea Party. Rodriguez said that, personally, he considers Perry "a very, very good candidate," but that some of his tea party cohorts feel "he's dropped the ball on illegal immigration, particularly during the last legislative session."

Rodriguez, who worked for what was then the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, said he had seen "the evolution of illegal immigration." When Perry signed the Dream Act, he said, illegal immigration was not a crisis issue, but now "times are radically different."

Bill Moore, president of the Sugar Land Tea Party, also gave Perry a pass.

"That was a long time ago," he said, referring to the Texas law. "I haven't really heard people talk about it. We need to secure the border. That's the key thing for the safety of everybody, and the federal government really hasn't put up the resources to get it done."

Thanks Isacac,that clears it up about as much as we have a clear statement from Cain in his 2nd stance.

I would still like clear and precise statements from both.

Of course it is a reasonable question.You can listen to what he SAYS he would do , then measure it against what he HAS DONE as Governor of a border State.

He Says he will secure the border ,and KNOWS HOW.Like everyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence who actually spends time down there-like Pat Powell and a few others - he knows that popular,easy sounding solutions[does BUILD A DAMN FENCE ALL ALONG THE BORDER AND PUT BOOTS ON THE GROUND sound familiar?] will not solve the problem."Comprehensive" has come to mean "amnesty" to the Beck and O'Reilly tools , but it actually does have a meaning apart from that.

He SAYS strategic fencing is one part of the solution.Federal troops to back up the BP in high traffic areas is another part.A guest worker program , where you know who they are and where they are is another.Employer sanctions is a problem for the Congress,apparently , because they have chosen to ignore it.

What he has done is simply everything he can do as governor to deal with the CRIMINALS coming across.Did either of you read the "General's Report " which Texas paid for?

It outlines how we have elite squads of DPS troopers and Texas Rangers-which are the only resources under the Governor's control- working with the BP,local LEO's,and the Mexican authorities to deal with the CRIME on our side of the border.

All you are interested in is the fact that Perry , with overwhelming support from the legislature,allow certain kids who are here thru no law-breaking on their part , who are pursuing citizenship in the state they live in , to be treated as citizens for purposes of IN STATE tuition.

Can you understand that some of us - most of us evidently - think that THAT is none of your damn business.

Thank you Sir. This is what I have been looking for but have not seen posted. Do you have a link for the "General's Report". I have not heard of it and living in Washington State have no clue what it is or anything about it. But trust me, I am willing to read it.

You seem to think I am apposing you but that is not the case. I am just looking for answers. My mind is still open and my choice is not even running.

Amnesty, rewards for illegals to take advantage of our nation by getting "free" and "discounted" stuff while paying nothing for it, a fence with holes in it, and more taxes on business.

Great plan....not.

Piss on "Governor Good Hair".

Get a POTUS that's serious about protecting the border, and put Jan Brewer or Sheriff Babeu or "America's toughest Sheriff" has head of DHS.

Only if Kalifornicators also pay an additional 18% for living amongst and allowing some of the dumbest bullchit ever witnessed. Afterall you folks don't stay put and wind up infecting the other states with your vile and disgusting ideas.

You really don't know a damn thing but think that is no impediment to running your mouth.Which is the main reason you will not learn a damn thing.

What really counts,Sean, is what you learn after you know it all.

I'll find the thread and link it here.

I like the idea that you give up the kids tax plan there are people I work with you get more than they pay and its because of the kids and I have raised mine. Remember this is simply the whole thing I actually like it. With the exception how long before WA wants to increase it.

Texas Border Security Council Report to Governor Rick Perry
governor.state.tx.us/files/press-office/border-security-report.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
The 80th Texas State Legislature allocated $110 million for border security and created ... The Texas Border Security Strategy established by Governor Perry in ...

Google the Texas Border etc etc to read the full report.

Following is a "report on the report" by a reputable border scholar.I started a thread on this but -as usual- the idiot cop from Tn.stalked 'ops to it and it went to hell.I didn't try to keep it going.

#5661774 - 09/28/11 02:25 PM Further to 'Oop's Thread on Texas Border Security
curdog4570 Online content
Campfire Tracker

Registered: 02/18/01
Posts: 7476
Loc: North texas usa
Pay attention to the ROE for Nat'l Guard troops :


Yesterday
Texas Border Security: A Strategic Military Assessment
BY Herschel Smith
14 hours, 15 minutes ago

Two very important individuals in the military (and now consulting) community, Barry McCaffrey and Robert Scales, have penned a much-anticipated study entitled Texas Border Security: A Strategic Military Assessment.

The state on the ground in the war with the Mexican cartels is remarkable. We�ve already discussed how the Mexican cartels have adopted military-style tactics, techniques and procedures.

Mexican drug cartels are using military weapons and tactics while also recruiting Texas teenagers to carry out their operations, which are evolving into full-blown criminal enterprises, experts said.

Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steven C. McCraw said last week in a report given to Congress that the cartels �incorporate reconnaissance networks, techniques and capabilities normally associated with military organizations, such as communications intercepts, interrogations, trend analysis, secure communications, coordinated military-style tactical operations, GPS, thermal imagery and military armaments, including fully automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenades and hand grenades.�

There is apparently massive corruption in the U.S. border patrol, and the Mexican cartels have law enforcement officials at the local, state and national levels on their payroll. In order to combat the smuggling operations across the Rio Grande, Texas is creating a marine division. The reach of the cartels goes into the High Schools in Texas where they are recruiting children for cartel work.

McCaffrey and Scales add to the bleak picture by showing how the cartel strategy has changed from control through locations South of the border to control via operations at least one county deep into Texas, and they discuss the increased criminalization and violence associated with the cartels. The bleak picture dovetails with an assessment by Robert Bunker at Small Wars Journal.

Ten years after the 9/11 attack by Al Qaeda, the United States has reached a pivotal strategic decision point in our national policies. Are we to continue with our national security policy of focusing on that terrorist entity (and its group of networks) as the dominant threat to the US and the homeland or will the Mexican cartels (and their supporting gang networks) now be recognized as replacing Al Qaeda as the number one threat to our government and safety of our citizens? While the violence potentials of Al Qaeda are universally recognized� we will never forget the thousands of our dead mourned after 9/11� the violence associated with the criminal insurgent potentials of the Mexican cartels and their ability to corrupt and undermine governments in the Western Hemisphere must now be considered far more threatening to our nation.

The cartels� influence expands to thousands of U.S. cities and communities, and there are on the order of 18,000 cartels members or associated workers in Texas alone. The ability to intimidate and corrupt is unmatched in U.S. history � there is no national analogue to which the U.S. can refer to combat this menace.

The task for McCaffrey and Scales is big, and the bar set high. As for their recommendations? They sweep across a range of options, coordinated relationships, and increased efficiency in law enforcement. Counterintelligence and sting operations are of course important, as is rapid response capabilities and increased manpower.

McCaffrey and Scales do recommend the involvement of state troops (i.e., National Guard), but all efforts in this program are seen as led by Texas Rangers. It is fundamentally a civilian-led operation. Perhaps this focus is in deference to the Posse Comitatus Act (Section 1385, Title 18 U.S.C.), but it isn�t at all clear that U.S. troops should be forbidden or even could be forbidden from participating in border security under this act.

Furthermore, McCaffrey and Scales have a problem with their recommendation to use National Guard under the current circumstances. Recall that in Arizona, a National Guard-manned post was attacked and overrun by cartel fighters. Immediately after this, the following assessment was proffered.

Unfortunately, I must report that �Armed does not always mean �armed� as most Americans would understand. There are various states of being �armed.� These are called �Arming Orders (AO)� which define where the weapon �is,� where the magazine �is,� where the bullets �are� and where the bayonet �is.� They start at Arming Order One which could best be described as a �show of force� or �window dressing� in the worse case.

After considerable searching, I was able to find a complete copy of the Memorundum of Understanding/Rules of Engagement pertaining to the National Guard Deployment (�Operation Jump Start�), which I could then review.

After reviewing the MOU/ROE, I contacted several senior �in the loop� National Guard Officers that I have previously served with, to determine how many soldiers would be �armed� and their Arming Order number. After confirming The El Paso Times article that �very few soldiers there would carry weapons,� I was advised that during the next 90 days, amongst the few soldiers that have weapons, no soldier will have an Arming Order greater than AO-1, which means that an M-16 will be on the shoulder, there will be no magazine in the weapon (thats where the bullets come from), and the magazines stored inside the �ammunition pouch� will in most cases have no ammunition, they will be empty.

It was also conveyed to myself that in the unlikely event that a soldier is ever harmed on the border, the Arming Order will not be raised. Every individual I spoke to envisions no circumstance where there will ever be soldiers at AO-3/4, where a magazine with ammunition would be immediately available. Instead the soldiers will simply be kept farther away from the border if needed. They will be deliberately kept out of harms way.

I know you are thinking (maybe screaming), �but Why?� The easy public relations answer is that a soldier could kill someone. The National Guard is going to ensure that there is not a repeat of the incident in which Esequiel Hern�ndez was killed by a US Marine along the Border.

There are also numerous regulations pertaining to weapons. There is a requirement that a soldier must qualify with his weapon on an annual basis. Reasonably, you must be �qualified� with your weapon before you may carry a weapon. However, ranges for weapons qualification are extremely limited. National Guard soldiers normally perform their once a year required qualification when they go to Annual Training at Ft. Stewart, Ft. McCoy�� This year they are going to �the border� and unless there is a �regulation M-16 qualification range� down the road, they will not be able to get qualified. There is also the question of weapon storage and how do you prevent theft.

Even disregarding all of this, the rules for the use of force will prevent the effective use of the National Guard to accomplish border security. That is, unless something drastically changes.

I have recommended that we view what is going on as a war against warlords and insurgents who will destabilize the state both South and even North of the border. I have further recommended that the RUF be amended and the U.S. Marines be used to set up outposts and observation posts along the border in distributed operations, even making incursions into Mexican territory if necessary while chasing insurgents (Mexican police have used U.S. soil in pursuit of the insurgents).

While militarization of border security may be an unpalatable option for America, it is the only option that will work. All other choices make the situation worse because it is allowed to expand and grow. Every other option is mere window dressing.

While McCaffrey and Scales have done a service in their outline of the scope and magnitude of the problem, their recommendations are, needless to say, underwhelming. They kick the can down the road, and the road only becomes more dangerous with time and distance. Above it was said that there is no national analogue to the menace at the border. The only analogue to this problem is the most recent campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem has exceeded the ability of law enforcement to cope.
Featured,Mexican Cartels,Mexico,Texas Border Security
_________________________


"WAR Has Come To Texas" , or something similar is what the two General Officers conclude , as you will see if you read the report.

In light of what's going on in our S Texas counties , perhaps I can be forgiven for my reaction to out of state people bitchin' about tuition.

This is really emotional for you isn't it?
What do my LEO's do? "Hold for immigration". Prior to that, they don't get subsidized tuition that we don't give LEGAL citizens/residents of other U.S. states.

Cain has "six guns and it's not enough".
Perry has tens of thousands of illegal aliens he's willing to give subsidies to and a fence is nonsense.
Clear enough?

Gov. Perry of Texas, has fallen by the wayside.

letting illegal aliens into the country, and then allowing them to purchase educational services for free is just not going to cut it.

he needs to change his position on illegal aliens, stormong ashore, while we welcome them.

Gov. Perry is a great guy, but he needs to learn how to reposition his policies, much like Gov. Mitt has learn't to do.

This thread has been a great read. I like Maclorry's posting style - mostly unemotional and just focusing on his information.

I'm afraid Cain has enjoyed his 15 minutes as front runner and the next debate, whenever that is - should he still be touting the 9-9-9 plan by then unscathed will show us Perry and Romney shredding it, scaring Seniors and lower middle class and have Cain biting his bottom lip trying to salvage his message.

Thanks. I read every word.

yep, sure can, but the minute your gov goodhair threw his hat in the ring for Prez of ALL these United States

the way he governs and what he says about how he will govern is every bit MY damn business

you get THAT?