The hard thing about this one is that, unlike most politicians, I actually liked Perry as a person.
“Now, strategic fencing in certain urban areas to direct the flow of traffic does make sense, but building a wall on the entire border is a preposterous idea,” Perry said.
“The only thing a wall would possibly accomplish is to help the ladder business.”
This is probably the most shameless open-borders argument possible: it’s impossible to stop therefore it’s inevitable. If the Mexican Border Patrol can manage to keep Guatemalans out of Mexico, surely the US Border Patrol can keep Mexicans out of the US.
It gets worse:
“Good neighbors do not foster fear and engage in divisive appeals. They seek solutions”
Perry said the federal government needs to quickly enact immigration reform, and he said he supports a guest worker program that would bring illegal immigrants out of the shadows.
The governor also said he believes legislation that has been filed in the Texas House to do away with “birthright citizenship” is divisive.
State Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, has a bill that would challenge a U.S. constitutional interpretation that gives automatic citizenship to everyone born in the United States. Berman’s bill would deny such citizenship to anyone born to parents who are in the country illegally.
So basically, Perry here is saying that he supports an amnesty- letting illegals stay. And he supports automatic citizenship (and welfare benefits) to the child of any pregnant Mexican who can make it across the border. What’s “divisive” about that, except providing an incentive for a pregnant woman to risk her and her baby’s life while hastening the demographic displacement of the American people?
We’ve got a real problem here in Texas. How does arguably the most conservative state in the country have such sorry leaders? A governor who basically lied to us in the campaign and now supports open borders. Both of our Senators (Cornyn and Hutchinson) have this year supported their own amnesties. Hutchinson is even pro-choice, for goodness sake, elected in the very state whose laws against murdering unborn children were overturned by Roe v. Wade!
I think the main problem in the state is its size- it takes so much money to run for statewide office that the grassroots have relatively little influence over the selection. If a good candidate were to run for governor, unless that candidate could convince the money-men to fund his campaign, you’d never even hear about him, or else dismiss him as a wasted vote. I have hopes the Internet can change this in the long-term.
But for now, all this almost makes me wish I had voted for the crazy Jewish cowboy:
Kinky Friedman has said that if he was elected governor of Texas, he would make the Mexican government pay for the costs of illegal immigration in Texas or face what he called the “Israeli discount.”
“We should be as ruthless as they are with the southern border,” said the author and musician. He says: “I would tell [Mexican officials] to step up to the plate and pay their fair share of the cost illegals are costing the state of Texas…If they don’t do that, then I want the border on the nightly news every night.
But we should have better choices than a washed-up wannabe cowboy Yankee transplant named “Kinky”.
We only have ourselves to blame: we ought to research every candidate on the Republican Primary ticket for statewide offices and vote for the most conservative ones, regardless of funding. Did you do this? Did you even vote in the primary? If you didn’t, you really have no right to complain when Tweedledee calls Tweedledum a liberal in the campaign and then adopts his positions after the election.
Did I vote in the primary? Yes. Did I research every candidate? No.
One reason, though, is the because of the “wasted vote” comment you made. Knowing who the most conservative candidate is doesn’t necessarily do much good if you know they’re not going to be elected. And if I take my one vote away from the republican candidate, is that going to give the election to an even WORSE choice – the democratic one? (These are obviously generalizations, but I think it makes the point.)
It’s hard to know what to do when NO candidate supports all the positions that I support, etc. But it is disappointing to know that on something of this scale, Perry has made such a huge decision, especially when I remember hearing nothing of this before from him.
There’s so many issues here, not only the sheer number of illegal immigrants on welfare, etc., but also the national security ramifications. If anyone can come in and stay just because they made it here without dying, how do we know they aren’t Al Quaeda – or worse? We don’t. It seems that just for national security they would want to do SOMETHING to stop it.
Lindsay, the primary is held in March and is between Republican candidates- it decides who the nominee is, who then competes against the other party candidates in the general election in November. I did not vote for Perry in the primary, but for a more conservative challenger. Of course Perry got the nomination, and then I voted for him in the general election (held in November) as the least-worst candidate.
I should have left it blank.
I also think there’s some logic to occasionally letting the other side win an election if our side gets out of line. If we can’t hold our own leadership accountable for their actions and they betray us, then we can’t hope to restore anything. It’s better to let the Democrats do what damage they can in the short-term than to tolerate long-term misbehavior from the people who are supposed to represent us.
There are always alternatives to losing an election- in the extreme, there’s always nullification, and short of that, secession if things get too bad. But if we lie to ourselves about our own principles and elect liars and cheats, we will eventually come to resemble the very things we oppose, and from that transformation and degradation there can be no appeal, not even of blood.
I see this as the long-run process: will America wake up in time to win peacefully, and short of that wake up in time to win non-peacefully, or will we go quietly down the road of Brazil and Argentina, once first world countries but now multicultural caste systems held together by various unifying myths?
“Tom’s very small fundamentalist blurry picture” is what you should call your narrow minded drivel… You probably are against teaching evolution…
Tom:
To your last: doubtful, probably not, and (as I’m sure has been previously discussed) more than likely. I have great faith in the ability of humanity to be galactically stoopud.
The only reason I voted for Keaton-Strayhorn over Kinky is because of Mr. Friedman’s views on abortion and gay marriage. Perry’s party loyalty at all costs (and devotion to the Bush family’s vision of a world without borders) automatically disqualified him in my book. And not that I would have voted for him, but I didn’t even know the Dems were fronting anyone until about three weeks before the general election.
I would go on, but I don’t want to further blur your very small fundamentalist blurry picture with more mindless drivel.
BTW — there are still people who worship at the altar of evolution??? What great faith they have to deny the preponderance of facts revealed by truly empirical research. I have to grudgingly admire such dedication.
Dave,
If you think I’m a fundamentalist, you should meet some of my friends! Funny, I always thought narrow-minded people were people who called other people names without making any substantial arguments.
In regards to evolution, and particularly the scientific fact of microevolution (funny how- I presume- liberals like yourself run like little girls when someone actually has a useful set of policy suggestions stemming from the human sociobiological implications of microevolution: see The Bell Curve), I certainly will teach it to my children, but from a rational scientific point of view that is open to other explanations for the observed phenomena, not a closed-minded faith-based atheist humanist approach.
Tom
Directo a Mexico: Your Tax Dollars at Work. Possibly a nonsequitor here, but related to our illegal alien problem in the US.
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released Federal Reserve marketing materials created for “Directo a México” [Direct to Mexico], a new government program designed to facilitate the transfer of funds from immigrant workers in the U.S. – regardless of their legal status – to their relatives in Mexico. Judicial Watch obtained the marketing materials, prepared for presentations to financial institutions in California in early November 2006, from the Retail Payments Office of the Federal Reserve in Atlanta, Georgia.
Marketed as “the best way to send money home,” offering “more pesos for every dollar,” the Federal Reserve’s remittance program charges U.S. financial institutions $0.67 per item to transfer money from the United States to Mexican banks, ensuring a “highly competitive rate.” The Federal Reserve also provides participating U.S. financial institutions with Spanish language promotional materials to “help get your message out.” The program was reportedly launched in response to a directive from President Bush following the 2001 U.S. – Mexico Partnership for Prosperity created by President Bush and then Mexican President Fox. It makes no distinction between “legal” and “illegal” aliens.
The “Directo a México” marketing materials, which are targeted to banks, credit unions and other financial institutions in the U.S., include information on payment channels and benefits to Mexican recipients. These marketing materials also detail the number of Mexican migrants in the United States, 9,328,405, with no distinction between those here illegally or not. A separate list identifies Mexican banks receiving “Directo a México” transfers by branches (8,578) and total bank accounts (41,313,157).
While the federal government is subsidizing and marketing “Directo a México,” Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard has seized millions of dollars en route to Mexico via Western Union, the largest U.S. money-transfer company. These financial transactions are allegedly linked to a sophisticated drug smuggling and human trafficking racket. Arizona courts have issued warrants that allow state investigators to intercept wire transfers that exceed $500 from 23 states.
“The taxpayer-subsidized ‘Directo a México’ program seems designed to facilitate the transfer of wealth by illegal immigrants outside the United States. This program undermines our nation’s immigration laws and is a potential national security nightmare,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “In the least, the Federal Reserve must limit this program to legal aliens and U.S. citizens only.”
Visit http://www.judicialwatch.org to view the “Directo a México” marketing materials.
Wow! Look at all the action that happens when you don’t check the blogs for a few days! =)
First of all, anybody know who Dave is? =) And if he thinks YOU’RE a fundamentalist, I think he’d die of apoplexy if he heard all of MY views.
THis is a very interesting discussion because it centers rght at the conflict I go through every time I vote. Do I vote for the ‘least worst’ or do I not vote at all? How much should a candidate agree with my views before I choose to vote for him/her? What are the MAJOR issues that they MUST be firm on before they get my vote?
I agree with your short-term comments about losing an election or two. I am praying that is what will happen with the turnover in the House – that the Amercians will see that nothing gets better with the Democrats in ‘power’ (funny how all of a sudden it’s like they won the presidency because they have a slight majority in the House…anyway, that’s another issue).
And, of course, there are always people who vote AGAINST whoever’s in office, just because they want a change (my grandmother is one – it doesn’t matter if it’s republican or democrat, she just votes for the opposing party). =)
Anyway, I don’t feel discouraged – at least at this point, whatever happens in the federal govnerment, at least, does not directly affect my life (daily). There may be some hard decisions to make in the future, and we’ll make them when we have to, by day-to-day, we have nothing to complain about, so I’ll just thank God for the prosperity and peace He has given to us.
I didn’t vote for Perry, I always suspected he did not have what’s good for Texas in his heart. He a George Bush clone and we all know he never met an illegal he didn’t love. Eighty percent of the people are against amnesty but our elected politcians don’t give a damn!!! I know California has the right to petition for a recall vote. Do we have it in Texas?? Perry could not win on a head up vote against anybody. Maybe we could give Tom Tancredo a residence in Texas, he would surely beat Perry. Heck Hillary did it in New York why not Tom in Texas??
Sadly, Gary, I thought Perry might be “one of us”. The Perry and Bush camps do have their differences, as demonstrated by the rift over the appointment of Gates over Gramm for A&M’s presidency. Plus, Perry is a legitimate Texan who went to A&M, not a Yale-educated (to the extent Bush did anything academic at Yale) Connecticutt-born oil-carpetbagger Yankee transplant.
In the end, though, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference.
A lot of our problems are essentially leadership problems. The good, honest people are cowed into silence by the media, while sociopaths willing to play both sides of the fence get elected. We need strong, unapologetic, politically incorrect conservative leadership. I agree on the national stage Tancredo is the best we have.
[...] Seriously, contrast this tyrannical executive order with Perry’s pro-anarchy view of the border. Is this idiocy or intentional? [...]