Comrade Rick Perry, he who wants as many Demoncrat voters allowed into the United States as possible has a modified limited walk back of his heartless complaint against patriotic Americans. He, of note, did not walk back his snide remark that some people have an objection to the sound of certain persons last names. Of course that was similar to the standard Obama complaint concerning his detractors whom he and the left consider racist.
Notably, most of Perry's walk back is itself filled with lies, misstatements, and distortions:
The Hill September 28, 2011Rick Perry said Wednesday that he was sorry for saying at last week's Republican debate that those opposed to providing an in-state tuition break to the children of illegal immigrants “did not have a heart.”
Yeah, sorry he got called out on it and dropped in the polls.
“I was probably a bit over-passionate by using that word and it was inappropriate,” Perry said in a interview with Newsmax. “In Texas in 2001 we had 181 members of the legislature — only four voted against this piece of legislation — because it wasn’t about immigration it was about education.”
Inappropriate? It was inaccurate and out of the Alinsky playbook of the radical left. So-called conservatives should not be accusing fellow conservatives of racism. That is the complaint-du-jour of the Demoncrat Party.
But Perry stood by his argument that building a fence along the entire Mexican border was unwise. The Texas governor said that the fence would likely be expensive, ineffective and violate the property rights of those who owned land on the border.
This from the same governor who wanted to build a the Trans-Texas Corridor, a toll-superhighway through the heart of Texas. Yeah, that would also certainly violate the property rights of some people. And that was not for a public purpose, but for a private purpose, as in Kelo; a privately owned roadway that charged tolls. A fence would be built for a governmental purpose only, to limit illegal immigration. And that is what Perry is concerned about.
It is the effectiveness of a fence that Perry and the radical left are concerned about. Of course Perry wants a low wage compliant work force as David Frum described and similar to the objections that Alan Greenspan has to American workers; overpaid, over here, and white. A fence would interfere with that plan. His plan for Texas is the same as Chipotle's business plan: Hire illegals to assist businesses in profitability and growth by driving down wages. A little bit of China in the heart of the United States.
“In the metropolitan areas where the fencing actually can play a positive role, absolutely,” he said. “But you have to have boots on the ground … having an obstacle without observation is no obstacle at all. So just the idea of building a fence and saying, ‘That will take care of it, let’s just build a fence,’ has never worked in the history of mankind.”
Here Perry is dishonestly implying that advocates of the fence want to build it and then abandon it. I haven't heard anything of the sort. A fence to be effective has to be patrolled. But patrols without a fence is pointless.
Other candidates seized on Perry's support of the tuition credits — and arguments against a fence — in an attempt to discredit him during the debate. Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann argued that taxpayer dollars shouldn't benefit those in the country illegally, while Jon Huntsman suggested his position on the fence might be "treasonous." But while Perry walked back his "heartless" comment, he insisted that his experience as governor of a border state best prepared him to handle immigration issues."As Texas governor, a border governor, you have to deal with these issue, you can’t just talk about them and say, ‘Oh, let’s build a wall from Brownsville to El Paso and that will take care of it.’ We have to live with reality," Perry said.
His reality is accepting illegal immigration, hence the necessity to educate the illegals already here.
He also reiterated criticism of the federal government for what he considers a failure to protect the southern border."We wouldn’t be having these conversations today, whether it’s about in-state tuition for illegal immigrants or whether it’s the Arizona law or whether it’s voter-ID which we passed in Texas, or sanctuary cities and the banning of those. … None of those would come up if the federal government had simply done its job through the years to secure our borders," Perry said.
True enough. But rewarding illegal aliens is not going to aid enforcement of Federal law. Arizona's laws were in support of Federal law. Perry's in opposition to Federal law. And Perry continued to defend the in-state tuition for illegal aliens as a States Rights issue:
ABC's The Note September 28, 2011“It is a state’s sovereign right to decide that issue for themselves. In Texas in 2001, we had 181 members of the legislature. Only four voted against this piece of legislation because it wasn’t about immigration. It was about education,” Perry said. “The bigger issue is that the federal government has failed in its constitutional duty to secure our borders.”
Again, wrong on the facts. Texas, nor any other State, may make its own immigration policy. Nor may Texas aid, abet and assist illegal aliens to remain in the United States in violation of Title 8 United States Code Section 1324, Bringing In And Harboring Certain Aliens, no matter how many State legislators voted for it or, in the words of Texas, agin it. I would much rather see Governor Perry reject Federal control of Texas schools, or the Federal government prohibiting Texas, in Plyer v. Doe, from lawfully and Constitutionally prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in Texas schools. There he should be making his 10th Amendment stand. But he is not and that is because Rick Perry, the Demoncrats, Barak Hussein Obama, and the Communist Party USA have the same position on in-state tuition for illegal aliens.