Rick Perry defends Texas DREAM Act at the Republican debate
It is clear that there is no perfect candidate on the GOP side running for president. The two frontrunners, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, both have baggage in their past. Romney has the Massachusetts healthcare legislation while Rick Perry has Texas’s DREAM Act in his past. While most of the candidates seem to invoke states rights when it is convenient for them, they have no problem ignoring states rights when it is not.
Mitt Romney says that he was acting within the boundaries of states rights when he signed Romneycare while claiming that Perry was not acting properly when signing the DREAM Act. Meanwhile Rick Perry says passing the DREAM Act was within his jurisdiction under states rights but Romney was wrong to pass healthcare using states rights as his justification.
Michele Bachmann claims that she is a supporter of states rights yet supports a federal ban on gay marriage instead of leaving the issue up to the states–a position that both Romney and Perry agree with. They are all trying to use states rights at times while at other times ignoring states rights–they are trying to have it both ways.
Correction: Michele Bachmann does not support a federal ban on gay marriage and does believe this is a states rights issue–I apologize for my mistake.During the debate last night Rick Perry had the chance to admit he was wrong in signing the DREAM Act in Texas but he failed to do so, instead reenforcing his support of the legislation. This is curious because he did admit he was wrong in signing the HPV vaccinations into law by Executive Order–although he never claimed the vaccinations were wrong, admitting only that the manner in which he made the vaccinations law was wrong. He had a chance to back away from the DREAM Act but refused to and that is because he felt it was the right thing to do.
This is what he had to say last night:
In the state of Texas, if you’ve been in the state of Texas for three years, if you’re working towards your college degree, and if you are working and pursuing citizenship in the state of Texas, you pay in-state tuition there,” said Perry.
“And the bottom line is, it doesn’t make any difference what the sound of your last name is. That is the American way,” said Perry. “No matter how you got into that state, from the standpoint of your parents brought you there or what have you. And that’s what we’ve done in the state of Texas. And I’m proud that we are having those individuals be contributing members of our society rather than telling them, you go be on the government dole.”
Rick Perry said there were only two options in dealing with the children of illegal immigrants; either give them in-state tuition or put them on the public dole (I would argue that this is basically one in the same), but he failed to mention the third option–send them and their parents back home to their country and tell them they can come back when the do so legally.
As a states rights advocate, I happen to believe that healthcare reform, gay marriage, and dealing with college bound student children of illegal aliens are all issues which are best left up to the states. While I disagree with gay marriage, healthcare mandates, and the DREAM Act I still feel that the people of the states have the right to make this decision by electing people to represent them and their opinions on these issues within their states.
So in a way I am defending Romney’s position on the Massachusetts mandates, and I am supporting Rick Perry’s position on the DREAM Act, but I still have a major problem with Rick Perry after last night’s debate.
My problem is–as I have already stated–that these candidates have an inconsistent view of states rights and I still fear that Rick Perry will use his support of the DREAM Act in Texas to push for a national DREAM Act. Sure, he stated last night that he felt this was a state issue, but he ignores state issues when it doesn’t suit his purpose and I am left to wonder what he will do as president.
I honestly want to be able to support Rick Perry but he is making it hard for me to do so. I do not think this answer helped him at all, and in fact it seemed to have hurt him as he drew the boos from the TEA Party people in attendance last night. In the end we will have to chose between several flawed candidates; the question is, which of these candidate’s flaws can we best live with?
America's Watchtower 
I was less than impressed by Perry’s answers to in-state tuition for illegals and for his attempt to for vaccinations with Gardasil on 12 year old girls. I don’t think I can support Perry or Romney.
LikeLike
The Gardasil issue doesn’t bother me as much as the immigration, he did admit that he was wrong about the HPV vaccination but still supports the DREAM Act–at least in Texas.
LikeLike
There in lies the million dollar question! Which one will best serve the party? At this point, your guess is as good as mine. I have my issues with every one of them. I know there is not the perfect candidate, but surely we can do better! Maybe there is someone sitting back and just waiting for the perfect time to announce a run for the candidacy??? I also believe in the States Rights, but as you say, they use it when they want to and ignore it at other times. That doesn’t look good on their records. Guess we should just take a “wait and see” attitude for the moment and keep a list of pros and cons. I was just not impressed with the questions OR the answers last night. And, once again it seemed like a bunch of school kids bickering and seeing who could one up the other one. I thought Wolf B. was not the best moderator, either.
LikeLike
It is still way too early to decide and at this point I am still undecided. I keep waiting for one of them to step up but so far nobody has.
LikeLike
Rick Perry’s Texas has a huge latino population and I suspect most running for state wide office their support something along these lines. Do I like it? No! Does that mean I couldn’t support Perry? No! Any one of those 8 on stage last night would be better than Obama and that my friend is the bottom line. I suppose it comes down to which has the best chance of defeating Barack next November—-when I figure that one out, that’s who I will support.
LikeLike
You are probably right Ron and like you I don’t like it but perhaps it was something he had to do.
LikeLike
Steve, I think that one of the problems you guys face this and every time around is that none of your candidates has been caught walking on water, leading a good portion of your rank-and-file disillusioned. For better or for worse, the Dems haven’t got that problem, although don’t anyone think that I’m suggesting we haven’t got any problems at all.
I think the most glaringly inadequate position is Bachman’s, who prefers to leave healthcare up to the states – despite the way people travel around the country – yet wants to impose her views on gay marriage one time, through a federal ban, rather than deal with 50 sets of state citizens.
Anyway, I guess at this point we can count Bachman out of the race, – it’s between Perry and Romney. While I frown on casting ballots in a primary election based on perceived electability, I’m here to tell you that Dems will be a lot more receptive to Romney than to Perry. In addition, the Independents who voted for Obama 4 years ago and voted for Republicans in 2010 might not be enthusiastic about voting for a fellow who all but said that Social Security is unconstitutional, and seems to enjoy scaring the bejeezus out of the elders by implying that it’s an illegal Ponzi scheme that needs shutting down. And some of us think that his nattering about secession, even if it was to a home-town crowd during a local election, was terribly irresponsible and in generally poor taste.
Hope all’s well, and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
TGY, “walking on water” is not one of the positive traits that I want in a candidate. That pretty much was not on my wish list. You did, however, get me to smile on that one. This will be an interesting presidential race, that is for sure.
LikeLike
I don’t know if searching for a candidate who can “walk on water” is a problem, I think every person is looking for the ideal candidate when it comes time to vote and there is nothing wrong with that. Of course there is no perfect candidate to everybody because not all people can ever agree on all issues–even within a party–so it will come down to who is the person I can most support. This is all part of a healthy debate, and not part of a problem.
LikeLike
I haven’t made my mind up about who I will be supporting, but let me see if I can explain how I feel about Governor Perry.
I don’t particularly care for the idea of giving instate tuition to the children of illegal immigrants, but I think Perry’s stance on this has a lot to do with the reality of being the governor of a state that borders Mexico. I think he sees instate tuition as a way of helping them become productive and legal citizens of our country. (Keep in mind that these children are illegal through no fault of their own.) I don’t necessarily believe that is the same as putting them on the government dole.
Do I wish Governor Perry was tougher on the issue? Yes, I do. However, we are once again faced with the reality of the situation. No matter if we are able to secure our border or not, those children are not likely to be deported back to their home country. It sounds good to say it should be done, but logistically, I think it is impossible. At least, not unless we are willing to use troops to round them up and I don’t think we should go there.
In the end, it may cost him the votes of those of us who are more hawkish on immigration. Will it be enough to cost him the nomination? I suppose we will have to wait and see.
LikeLike
Good analysis Larry. I haven’t ruled out voting for hime yet and I do wish he was stronger on the border issues, but he may be the best that we have. It is shaping up to be an interesting race.
LikeLike
LD, I think what you are saying if I read it correctly is that Gov. Perry is trying to make the best of a bad situation, right? We can say what we want, but until we have to deal with something personally we never know what we are going to do with a problem. I am with you, not sure if it will cost him the nomination. Even if he is lacking, in my estimation, in some areas, if he is the best we have to offer, then he will get my vote over what is in there now. Interesting it will be, Steve!
LikeLike
That is exactly what I am saying, Lou222.
LikeLike
Lou and Larry, I think that you are both right and this is going to come down to who is the least flawed candidate with the best chance of beating Obama.
LikeLike
People seem to always get caught up in the notion that it is impossible to round up all the illegals and deport them. I contend that it is not necessary to “round them up”. All that needs to be done is to pass laws that limit their ability to use and abuse our services. When SB1070 was passed by our legislature here in Arizona it caused a mass exodus of illegals from our state even though Obama decided to fight us. It seems that just the threat of these types of laws have a positive effect on reducing and reversing the illegal invasion. I was whole heartedly in favor of Perry and I love that he knows his mind (refreshing), but defending his position on the Texas Dream Act has caused me to rethink my support for him over Bachman. The only point that I can think of to defend Perry is that the Supreme Court has ruled that no one whether legal or not can be refused public education in the US under Plyler v. Doe. I’m not sure how much that applies here or whether it affected the original decision to sign the act into law.
LikeLike
We also can simply arrest them when they are caught for other violations and deport them then. It make take years but if we enforce the laws we don’t actually have to send out sweeps to round them up.
LikeLike
No doubt, removing the incentive for people to cross our border illegally would be a good first step to take. If we could only enforce the laws that are on our books, concerning employers hiring workers without proper documentation, it would go a long way towards removing that incentive. However, the fact remains that those who refuse to leave on their own would be hard to round up, without a significant showing of force. I would much prefer Steve’s suggestion that we arrest them when they are caught for other violations and then make sure they are deported, post haste.
I want to also point out that the Texas law that provides in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants is much, much different than the national DREAM Act that failed Congress. So much so, that they shouldn’t even be in the same classification.
LikeLike
Perry was let off the hook. He’s gone far beyond any “dream act,” advocating bi-national health insurance with Mexico and envisioning eliminating the border all together. He’s been called Bush light, and he sounds like it. Do you want to start the amnesty debate all over again? Choose Perry.
LikeLike
The idea of that “bi-national” health insurance is a little scary, I am going to have to look into that one.
LikeLike
You kind of summed up what I think about many Republicans:
“While most of the candidates seem to invoke states rights when it is convenient for them, they have no problem ignoring states rights when it is not.”
The is EXACTLY the problem.
They say “let the states decide” until they disagree. For example, Perry is for a Constitutional Amendment saying marriage is only between a man and a woman.
You ARE for letting states decide things or you’re not. Which is it?
LikeLike
Exactly Harrison! In the end I don’t think that anyone believes in states rights any more but this gives them a nice little “out” when they need it in a debate.
LikeLike
Yes, a talking point and nothing more. That’s why I often roll my eyes when Republicans talk about State’s Rights.
LikeLike
The marrige amendment may smack of Republican moralism, but there is a good reason why it makes some sense to be defined at the federal level. It really is a protection for couples that may move from state to state so that their rights and privileges are uniformly enumerated regardless of residence. Of course, at present the amendment is woefully lacking in any clear language and without such language that addresses same sex unions I doubt it would gain any real traction. I believe Perry is a state’s rights advocate based on his interpretation of the Constitution. I know that Democrats at large hate the entire concept of state’s rights. I find their complaint about a proposed federal amendment and criticisms about Republicans state’s rights invocations to be laughable if not hypocritical, especially in the face of Obamacare being rammed down our throats. At least Republicans think about the issue.
LikeLike
My measuring stick is which candidate is talking about reducing the size of government and promoting individual liberty. And the only way we’re going to get America back on track is by electing an individual that understands that the constitution limits the role of government and the rights of people. We need to break this cycle of electing establishment types. If we don’t figure this out soon, there will be very little left of the America we love to leave to our children. I only see one candidate that is talking about liberty and limiting the role of government in our lives.
LikeLike
And I think I know which candidate you are talking about…..
LikeLike
I’m not here to defend Bachmann Steve, she’s having a tough time now with Perry in there, as we all predicted
BUT in the first debate she was asked point-blank about the gay marriage issue -since she made her name getting a ban passed in MN- and she very clearly stated that as president she would leave it up to the states
Maybe I missed something else she said more recently that you saw, but she was not at all vague on it in NH, I’ve still got the clip
LikeLike
You are 100% right RR, I apologize for the mistake. I can’t edit the post from my mobile but will make the correction later on tonight. post from my mobile but will make the correction later on tonight.
LikeLike
They are both wrong. You can’t have it both ways. You either beleive in states rights or you do not. They both passed bad legislation. But that is why states rights is so critical. If you do not like the laws being passed in your state or it’s policys you can move to another state. You can not escape to another country when the Federal gov. does things. What? Move to Mexico? How about that wonderful socialist mecca Venezuela. Or go for that world class health care in Canada.???
LikeLike
Exactly!
LikeLike
It is still early in the race. I am holding out for someone else to lead us out of the wilderness other than Perry and Romney. We may now have a lot more options since Obama got whacked in NY-9
LikeLike
I would love to see Allen West jump in the race, but I don’t think that is going to happen.
LikeLike
Maybe he will be ready for the next election, IF we even have an election by then. For all I know we could have a dictator and will not have the need to vote.
LikeLike
If the children of illegal immigrants were born in the US then they are not illegal and thus, if they live in Texas, deserve in-state tutition. But if someone came here – or was brought here – illegally, they should not get in-state tuition.
That is my feeling on the matter.
LikeLike
Harrison, I still feel that the citizenship of the parents is what should be passed on to the child. So, if they came here illegally, but are citizens from another country, then that is what the child should have passed on to them as to their citizenship. I don’t feel responsible to supply anything to an anchor-baby, not one dime. The parents knew what they were doing and it should fall on their shoulders to take care of their baby. Don’t we have enough people here that ARE American citizens that need taken care of? We should not have to take care of the world.
LikeLike
But the reason that they are not illegal is because of a broad interpretation of the 14th amendment which was only written to ensure that the children of freed slaves were given citizenship.
LikeLike
I think it is time to once and for all do away with that interpretation. It sure is costing us alot of money and without the draw of that happening, then maybe we would not have as many coming across the border. I know, I am wishful thinking, right?
LikeLike
I agree, but don’t hold your breath.
LikeLike
If the comments on gay marriage refer to support for DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), then their support actually is in concert with states rights. DOMA does not ban legalized gay marriage by the states. It only prevents one state from being forced to recognize a gay marriage from another state by the Federal Government.
If the comments are directed to candidates supporting a constitutional ammendment, then is the right way to approach any changes to rights or powers enumerated in the constitution and would require the approval of at least 3/4 of the states i.e. the states again have final say on on the changes and would not be an unconstitutional usurpation of states rights.
I don’t think any of the candidates are advocating that the Federal Government force the states to ban gay marriage in individual states which would be trampling on states rights.
LikeLike
I tend to agree. There will never be the perfect candidate. Which one do we feel has the experience, fairness and fortitude to lead this country back where she needs to be? And I say that as a right of center moderate—-so too far right isn’t acceptable to me, personally either.
I wish there are certain things that Perry hadn’t brushed with, or stomped into as it were. Although the amnesty thing might win him points with the Left. Which may not be a bad thing, if they find that maybe they can live with him, some might throw their votes at him. Especially since they are so disillusioned with Obama.
I think Romney, when it comes down to it, is more left than he presents. He’d be palatable to the Left. But he may be palatable to the right, too. I have concerns on his flip-flopping. How far would he flop if elected?
Bachmann, while there’s no doubt of her passion, I just don’t believe has the executive experience for the job. In a country as divided as we’ve become,I don’t think she’d have the balance to heal. Don’t get me wrong, I do not want what the Left/Progressives have to offer…and I suspect neither would they if they were ever truly subjected to their own ideals.
Listening to her interview with Chris Wallace, she defends the States to pass laws allowing gay marriage, but supports a Federal Constitutional amendment supporting the definition of marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, but she wouldn’t interfere with states’ rights. However Federal law trumps state law, and she supports a Fed Const. amendment that overturn the state law. Essentially the States have a right to allow it, but the federal government has the right to overturn it in the case of a Fed Amendment. Sound confusing? So was Chris Wallace.
I wonder what would happen if Giuliani threw his hat in? Or is it too late?
LikeLike
A very good summary! I keep hearing rumors about Giuliani getting in the race, I guess we will have to wait and see, but it is getting late.
LikeLike
Wow, I was a bit long winded….sorry.
LikeLike
No need to apologize.
LikeLike
A constituitional ammendment does not conflict with states rights, because it requires ratification by the states, as described in Article V of the constitution and it is the appropriate and constitutional way to make such changes, i.e. no conflict here with states rights.
LikeLike