Fox News
Perry signed bill to prevent illegal's from
obtaining a Texas drivers license.
I
signed that bill because getting a driver’s license is a privilege, not a
right. It just doesn’t make sense to me to extend that privilege to individuals
who are here illegally.
I then
vetoed a bill that would have allowed the use of a matricula consular, which is
an ID card used by the Mexican government, to get a driver’s license in Texas.
Driver’s licenses are used
for a host of activities besides driving, like making financial transactions,
boarding airplanes, renting vehicles and proving your identity to government
authorities. The Department of Homeland Security has expressed concern that the
matricula consular is particularly susceptible to fraud, which means you can’t
rely on it to prove someone’s identity. So if you allow someone to use it to
get a driver’s license, you’ve got some pretty serious homeland security
implications.
I
called for abolishing sanctuary cities in my last State of the State address,
and made it an emergency item for the Legislature. I’m a firm believer in
giving law enforcement the discretion they need to do their job. Sanctuary city
policies handcuff law enforcement officers in order to further a political
agenda
I too oppose the federal
DREAM Act and will oppose it as President. Because the federal government has
failed to secure the border, states have had to act. In Texas we have sent
Texas Rangers to the border, spent hundreds of millions to fight border crime,
outlawed driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and passed Voter ID. On the
issue of all Texas residents paying in-state tuition
The
federal DREAM Act is an amnesty bill, and I strongly oppose amnesty. The Texas
educational residency bill was vastly different.
Because the federal government has failed in
its basic duty to protect our borders, states are forced to deal with illegal
immigrant issues.
In
Texas, we had to deal with the children of illegal immigrants residing in our
state and attending our schools, as the federal government requires states to
educate these children through the public school system. Lawmakers in Texas –
indisputably one of the most conservative states in America – were virtually
unanimous in their decision.
The
Legislature determined the payment of in-state college tuition is available to
all students who have lived in Texas for at least three years and graduated
from a public high school. If you meet those requirements, you pay in-state
tuition, whether you relocated from Oklahoma, Idaho, Canada or Mexico. The only
difference is that Texas residents who aren’t documented must be on the path to
pursue U.S. citizenship to be allowed to pay in-state tuition.
There
were a number of reasons the bill received widespread support among
conservatives. Importantly, it has never had a cost to Texas taxpayers. In
fact, our institutions of higher learning would actually lose tens of millions
of dollars in lost tuition payments if the law were repealed.
And
it would lower the odds that these students would receive subsidized health
care or end up in prison.
Protecting
taxpayers was a serious concern, given that a Supreme Court decree already
requires taxpayers to pay for K-12 education for undocumented students.
5.
Now, you came out against Arizona’s illegal immigration law, SB 1070 —
although, in your defense, you signed on to support the law when the Obama
Administration sued Arizona. Do you think the Obama Administration was right to
sue Arizona over its immigration law?
I
support the right of each state to come up with its own plan to address the
federal government’s failure on border security and illegal immigration.
The
federal government has failed to secure the border, and states are left fending
for themselves. States have every right under the 10th Amendment to pass laws
and make decisions for themselves. That’s why Texas supported Arizona when the
Obama Administration sued to overturn Arizona law.
If
Washington politicians don’t like the way state leaders are cleaning up their
mess, they should quit complaining and pick up a broom. If they just did their
job securing the border in the first place, states wouldn’t be forced to
develop with their own policies.
In
Texas, our efforts have focused on stopping the illegal flow of narcotics and
people before they cross the border, rather than once they get here. It’s the
philosophy that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
We’ve
spent about $400 million of our state tax dollars to put more boots on the
ground, more helicopters in the sky and better intelligence in the hands of law
enforcement.
And
we’ve seen real results. Our surge in manpower has created major disruptions
for the drug cartels and human smuggling rings. We’ve seized millions of pounds
of drugs, taken 3,500 illegal weapons off the street and made America safer.
Securing
the border and enforcing immigration laws are the federal government’s
constitutional responsibility, and it’s time for Washington to do its job.
In
the meantime, I respect the right of all states to develop their own solutions,
whether they use the Texas model or the Arizona model. I applaud my fellow
governors who are showing leadership on this issue, because President Obama
certainly has not.
6.
You’ve talked a lot about cutting spending, but do you think we should be
willing to spend more money to increase the number of border patrol agents and
ICE agents doing interior enforcement?
Absolutely.
Border security is a federal responsibility. Our greatest need is more boots on
the ground, and America needs a president who will stop talking about securing
the border and finally do it.
In
Texas, we found a way to commit $400 million to border security in recent
years, even when we faced tough budgets. In Washington, it’s not a question of
means; it’s a question of will.
I
have no doubt we can find the funds necessary to increase manpower, technology
and fencing on the border. In fact, cutting bureaucracy at the EPA would
probably be a great place to start.
We
just need a leader who will set the right priorities. I made it happen in Texas
and I’ll do it again if I’m president.
7.
During the debate, Rick Santorum said the following, “[Rick Perry] gave a
speech in 2001 where he talked about bi-national health insurance between
Mexico and Texas! I mean, I don’t even think Barack Obama would be for
bi-national health insurance! So, I think he’s very weak on this issue of
American sovereignty.” Looking at the issue in more detail, it doesn’t look
like you were actually proposing joint American/Mexican national health
insurance, so much as deregulation that would allow private insurers, if they
wished, to cover people on both sides of the border. Can you talk about what
you were driving at with that proposal?
In
Texas, we are always looking for innovative ways to improve the delivery and
cost of healthcare. Texas reviewed the issue, but never pursued it. This was
back in 2001 and you’re exactly right that it was about freeing up consumers
and private insurers from government regulation.
The
idea was similar to allowing states to enter into compacts or allowing health
insurance products to be sold across state lines. I think what I mentioned in
that 2001 speech was that the legislature was conducting a “feasibility study.”
Turns out it wasn’t feasible to implement, so nothing ever came of it.
But
I’m glad we weren’t afraid to take a look at the idea, and let it stand or fall
on its own merits. I think people are tired of stereotypical politicians who
sit around worrying about what opponents are going to criticize in the next
election. They’re always the first ones to abandon their principles.
In
any case, I do agree that President Obama probably wouldn’t have been too keen
on the idea of empowering healthcare consumers to make better health and
economic decisions for themselves.
8.
Obviously you don’t build a fence across every square inch of the border or
you’ll be going across roads or blocking farmers from being able to get to
water in some places. That’s an issue you’ve brought up a lot and it makes
sense although you’ve also explicitly said that you support strategic fencing
in certain areas. That being said, Congress has already passed a bill to build
a border fence for 854 miles across the border. In fact, it was supposed to be
completed in 2009, but we’re still not making any significant progress on it
under the Obama Administration. If Rick Perry becomes President of the United
States, would that fence on the border be completed in your first term?
I
have long been a proponent of strategic fencing because it is a critical
component of border security, and it works when used in the right places.
I
think what caused the hang up was that after it was passed, it was amended to
give Homeland Security complete discretion on how, when and whether the fence
ever gets built. Obviously with this president, that means it will never be
completed.
If
I’m elected, I will direct my Secretary of Homeland Security to expedite
construction of strategic fencing along the border, especially in high traffic
areas where manpower alone is insufficient to do the job.
But
it’s important to remember that fencing is only one component of an overall
border security strategy. A fence is only as secure as it is manned.
That’s
why I would increase manpower on the border, starting with thousands of
National Guard and border patrol agents, and I’d also make greater use of
unmanned aerial vehicles to help gather real-time law enforcement intelligence.
We
know for a fact that increased manpower is effective, because we’ve proved it
in Texas with our $400 million border security effort.
9.
You’ve been very critical of E-Verify, the limited system the government is
using to verify Social Security numbers of employees. Admittedly, E-verify has
been poorly run by the government, but without some kind of system in place to
keep employers from unwittingly hiring illegals, it is not possible to fix our
illegal immigration problem. So, would you like to get rid of E-Verify and if
so, what would you replace it with?
I
agree that some kind of electronic verification system is needed so we can make
sure employers comply with the law not to hire illegal immigrants. E-Verify is
a federal government created and run program, and as a result there have been a
number of problems with it so far. The Department of Homeland Security
estimated the system could fail to identify more than half of all illegal
immigrants.
But
just because it has problems doesn’t mean we should throw employee verification
out. It means we should make it work. Employee verification needs to be
accurate so American citizens aren’t denied jobs based on bad data and
undocumented immigrants don’t slip through the system. And it needs to be less
cumbersome for employers to use, so it’s not costing them money they could be
using to create jobs.
So as
president, I’d work to put in place an E-Verify system that’s more accurate,
less burdensome and really delivers the results we need it to.
10.
Most Democrats and even some Republicans favor comprehensive immigration reform
with the idea being that we would create a path to citizenship for illegal
aliens while we put new security measures into place at the same time. The fear
many people have is that we’d get the citizenship for illegal aliens, but the
security measures would be slow-walked or never put into place at all. Would
you support comprehensive immigration reform or do you believe we need to
insist on a “security first” position, which means that we secure the border
and put some kind of system in place to keep illegal aliens from working before
we start discussing what would happen with illegal aliens that are already
here?
The
debate on immigration reform is meaningless until the federal government
secures the border. There’s just no point in passing new immigration laws when
we can’t even enforce the ones we’ve got. Once our borders are secure and we’ve
fixed the problem with visa “overstays,” then we can seriously address our
broken immigration system. But step one is to secure that border so we have the
ability to enforce the law. Cross Posted from Right Wing News
