smartgirlpolitics.ning.com
Posted by Donna Repub
January 5, 2012 at 5:59pm

Perry had no choice

The education of the illegals explained :

http://www.minutemanhq.com/state/rea...ter=TX&sid=946

Newt or Romney are supporting BLANKET AMNESTY by both of those libtards, which makes NO SENSE to me whatsoever.

Rick Perry is not always his best defender. For the last two weeks, Mitt Romney has hammered Perry over a Texas law the governor signed which allows children of illegal immigrants to pay in-state college tuition. At the Orlando debate, for instance, Romney said sardonically, “To go to the University of Texas, if you’re an illegal alien, you get an in-state tuition discount. You know how much that is? That’s $22,000 a year. Four years of college, almost $100,000 discount if you are an illegal alien, go to the University of Texas. If you are a United States citizen from any one of the other 49 states, you have to pay $100,000 more. That doesn’t make sense to me.”



Thomas Fluharty


In his defense Perry dolefully concluded, “if you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they’ve been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart.”

Well then. Perry would have done better to describe the program, explain its legislative history, how it works, and its effects. Because the Texas law is more complicated than Romney suggests and more interesting than you might think.


To understand Perry’s law, you have to go back to the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe. In it the Supreme Court struck down a 1975 Texas statute which prohibited local school districts from spending money on the children of illegal residents. The effect of the verdict was to create a national mandate entitling all children in America, regardless of their immigration status, to a K-12 public education.

The education of the illegals explained :

1) The Texas Legislature passed it on an almost 100% BIPARTISAN VOTE...177-4. Only 4 people voted against it. It was VETO PROOF. Perry could have vetoed it, but remember it was the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. He signed it because it's what PEOPLE WANTED.

2) It GENERATES REVENUE. $92 Million Dollars a year, for Texas, so it does NOT cost anything, but MAKES Texas money.

3) 73% of the kids eligible are LEGAL as they were BORN HERE. It's their PARENTS who were illegal, not them.

4) Since Texas has NO PERSONAL INCOME TAX school is paid for by SALES TAX and other goods and services. EVERYONE pays sales tax, so they have ALREADY PAID INTO THE SYSTEM with sales tax.

5) Less than 1% of the children have paid the in state tuition, or 1600 of them in a year. They ALSO do not go to the big universities, so they do NOT take the places other out of state kids want. They by and large go to local community colleges and 2 year universities that out of state kids would never go to.

6) Plyer V. Doe in 1982 said that ALL CHILDREN, and that means EVERYONE, must have a free education from K-12. It is more INTELLIGENT to continue to make sure these people are educated, rather than put them on WELFARE, FOOD STAMPS, ETC. Or, worse, have them join gangs, commit crimes, murder someone, etc. to feed their kids.

7) It is NOT Perry's job to deport these people. They are here until he is President and secures the border. Until then, this is the most INTELLIGENT decision based on facts.


There are more facts here...But honestly...Why are people willing to purposely take out the BEST candidate we have over something so stupid?

It's NOT an Amnesty Law or the Dream Act...it'sa REVENUE LAW. Perry is totally against Amnesty and the Dream Act and always has been.

Do people check their facts? Why do they think SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO ENDORSED PERRY?

Do they understand he is the ONLY ONE with experience securing the border???

http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/pr...-the-1982-case