re: "Re: Perry and the Illegals"

Michael Walsh at The Corner ("The one and only.") had a sympathetic perspective.

Money quote(s):

"(M)aybe it’s because I grew up on the U.S.-Mexican border in San Diego, or because I was a minority (white/haole) high-school student in Honolulu, or because I was a legal resident for years in Germany, where my American children (one of whom was born in Germany) got a splendid education in the German public-school system, that I think Perry has the principle exactly right on this issue."

It doesn't make sense to permit the growth of an under-educated (or un-vaccinated, &tc.) under-class in any American state or city.

(But we already do that.)

And what does it say when not subsidizing post-secondary education for illegal aliens is even an issue?

While I get what the poster is saying, in all the instance he cites, he was either a national citizen or a legal resident of one sort or another. Not an illegal.

9/23

re: "Rick Perry Isn't Entirely Wrong on Illegal Tuition"

Christian Schneider at The Corner ("The one and only.") considered Texas' illegal alien tuition dilemma.


Money quote(s):


"(O)pposing tuition for illegals is about as popular as opposing the guys at the mall who squirt lotion on you when you walk by."


Oh, don't even get me started on all those "Zohan" wannabees violating their tourist visas (by working) at Tysons Corner.


"(C)hildren of illegal aliens born in America are American citizens, and therefore entitled to whatever tuition their state of residence permits for in-staters. Perry’s law dealt with the children of illegal immigrants who were brought here after their birth, making them just as illegal as their parents.


In most cases (and pursuant to the Plyler case cited by Kevin), these kids are already going to the same high schools as our kids (in the case of Texas, for at least three years of school). They have the same teachers. They play on the same sports teams. They take the same tests, and get the same high-school degree. They are indistinct from any other high-school students. By the time an undocumented child makes it from first grade to graduating high school, taxpayers have already sunk over $100,000 into that child’s education. To pull the plug on those children because of the actions of their parents would be unfair, and would nullify the investment taxpayers have already made in the kid."


Interesting argument. But in business school they teach the concept of "sunken costs." It means, in essence, don't "throw good money after bad."


9/23

re: "Perry and the Illegals"

Kevin D. Williamson at The Corner (" The one and only. ") considered tuition benefits for illegal aliens.

Money quote(s):

"Under a Supreme Court mandate (Plyler vs. Doe), Texas and every other state is obliged to provide K-12 education for illegal immigrants. What Texas has decided, under Rick Perry, is to treat Texas high-school graduates like Texas high-school graduates for the purposes of calculating college tuition, including those who were brought here illegally by their parents, with a couple of provisos: They have to have been in school in Texas for three years prior to graduating from a Texas high school, and they have to be on their way to becoming legal permanent residents of the United States."

It's that last "proviso" that's problematic, IMNSHO; correct me if I'm wrong but this requirement can be met by an affidavit from the illegal immigrant that they're intending to become an LPR rather than by any proof of actual eligibility for that status.

"(Y)ou want to draw a bright line in the sand regarding illegal immigration; on the other hand, it’s hard to blame the kids for their parents’ wrongdoing, and the fact is that they’re here — some have spent practically their whole lives here — and we have to decide what to do with them. (I was once an illegal immigrant myself, so maybe I’m biased by experience.) In either case, it seems to me a pretty small thing compared to the robust border-security measures that are needed.

Deciding what kind of tuition to charge illegal immigrants who have graduated from high school and who meet the criteria for university admission is a very nice, rich-nation problem to have. (Seriously, you’re pretty well-off when your “problems” include college students.) That being said, in Texas the relevant question isn’t what we charge illegals for tuition, but whether we admit them to state universities at all. That’s because tuition in Texas is modest, even at the flagship universities, covering something on the order of one-fourth of the cost of operating the schools."

There are only so many seats in only so many lecture halls, as the writer notes below (in bolded typeface).

"Early in the 20th century, the state of Texas gave the universities a whole bunch of land, which turned out to have a whole bunch of oil on it, and West Texas is full of wells bobbing up and down and pumping grade-A education out of the ground. That, too, helps keep the professors in tweed."

&

"(T)hey really use tuition as an expedient tool of enrollment control. It is politically difficult to raise admission standards at public universities, but they can only take so many students. Once you’ve decided to admit an illegal on any terms, you’ve decided not to admit somebody else: The number of university seats is limited, and that is a more binding constraint than raw dollars, of which there are many billions in the Permanent University Fund." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Texas has created a zero-sum game and by providing an advantage to illegal immigrants, however "deserving" and sympathetic they must perforce disadvantage a U.S. citizen (and Texan).

"(I)f you have a student who has graduated from a Texas high school and who has lived for years in Texas, who isn’t going back to Mexico any time soon, and who qualifies for admission to a Texas university — it is not obvious to me that the most intelligent course of action is to make it more difficult for that student to go to college, rather than less.

If you want to neutralize the magnet that draws illegals to the United States, I think you’d be better off putting handcuffs on a half a dozen Tyson Foods plant managers than worrying about what the Aggies charge their undergrads."

There are reasons why CAA always purchases Perdue chicken when given a choice between Tyson Foods and Perdue products.

9/23

re: "Perry Bills Feds for Illegal Immigration"

Patterico at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") seconded Gov. Perry's question.

Money quote(s):

"From California’a Prop. 187 to Arizona’s more recent laws, the federal government is forever fighting state laws that regulate illegal immigration, arguing that controlling immigration is a purely federal responsibility.

So when the federal government fails to discharge that responsibility, why should the financial consequences of that failure fall on the border states?"

CAA is just a poor (but honest) consular officer.

Like many in that line of work, considering the many hours of my life devoted to implementing the Department of State's side of the legal immigration (and non-immigration) equation, I find it absolutely maddening when read about how some on the other side of that equation just throw up their hands and simply fail to carry out their professional responsibilities with regards to immigration.

Is the oath-of-office sworn by these federal employees in any way demonstrably different from the one FSOs swear?

8/27

re: "I'll Bet I've Met More Diplomats Than Rick Perry Has."

Donna at Email From The Embassy ("It's a crazy sort of lifestyle, but it's working for us so far.") defended FSOs against an ill-considered remark by Gov. Perry.

Money quote(s):

"The U.S. Department of State looks for the smartest people it can find, and then, if it can interest them in a low-paying, lonely and dangerous job, somewhere in the far reaches of the globe, it hires them.We have Republican diplomats. We have Democratic diplomats. We have gay diplomats. We have diplomats who oppose gay marriage. We have Muslim diplomats and Jewish diplomats, and girl and boy diplomats. Single parents can be diplomats, as can childless singles."

The pay isn't low, exactly. But it is on the lowish end of the salary range that might be earned by people with the sorts of experience, education, and other credentials FSOs bring with them into the Foreign Service.

It can be lonely, at times, and certainly presents its own assortment of dangers, some of them from unexpected directions.

"We have just about every type of diplomat you can imagine, because we represent a fairly diverse cross-section of America."

That's by design, as you might expect. No more "pale, male and Yale" only Foreign Service; that stereotype lingers on generations after it became an institutional memory. The "state school" folks vastly out-number the Ivy League-ers.

"You won't find a single person in the entire State Department who joined solely to get rich, or to advance a personal agenda at some great cost to our nation. People don't always agree with each other in the Foreign Service, and people don't always get along on a personal level. But Foreign Service officers always advance the agenda of our government, without fail. And they work together, no matter their personal beliefs. Because that is what they were hired to do. Imagine that, if you will: Democrats and Republicans, all working together on behalf of our nation - it happens every single day in the Foreign Service."

The folks with personal agendas don't labor in the diplomatic trenches for a couple of decades until they reach the vicinity of a policy-influencing position. The folks with personal political agendas come in with every new presidential administration, with every new secretary of state. Working diplomats implement the foreign policy of the United States as articulated by the president and by the secstate, consonant with the federal laws and ratified treaties which govern our diplomatic relations.

"(T)here aren't a whole lot of them out there (I'm told it is still true that there are more military band members than there are FSOs)."

A bit over ten thousand FSOs total, plus a few thousand more Foreign Service Specialists who make their work possible.

"Diplomats support American ideals in every country across the globe, often at great risk to themselves and their families. Diplomats (and their boss, the Secretary of State) don't set their own policies. Rather, they serve as boots on the ground, the eyes and ears of the President in every corner of the globe. Diplomats report back what they see and hear and think in these countries"

While diplomats aren't spies, precisely, diplomats do provide what's called "diplomatic intelligence." They're on the ground, with local contacts, with their ears to the ground, with (mostly) appropriate language skills, with their finger on the local pulse. Their reporting provides local context to policy makers.

"They present the facts - and yes, they present their own educated opinions - so that our President has the information he needs to create and direct policy. Once the President decides on policy, these same diplomats work to advance his agenda. Not their own agendas, mind you. Never their own agendas.

If they feel strongly enough that they can't support the President's policies, they resign. It happens, on occasion. If you suddenly find that you can't support current policy, you resign, and you go look for a job in the private sector, where you are allowed to disagree publicly with our nation's policies, and where you probably make more money, too.

But the rest of those diplomats work for the United States of America. They don't work for the Republicans, and they don't work for the Democrats. They work for us, for our country. Always."

11/8

re: "A Question for Rick Perry"

Andrew Exum at Abu Muqawama ("a blog that focuses on small wars and insurgencies in addition to regional issues in the Middle East") asked a question regarding our old friends the PMOI.

Money quote(s):

"(O)ne of Perry's informal advisors, Gen. (Ret.) Peter Pace, has been shilling for the terrorist group Mujahedeen Khalq along with a boatload of other people from both sides of the aisle -- including former Obama Administration National Security Advisor Gen. (Ret.) Jim Jones.

What is the appropriate response here? Should Gov. Perry distance himself from those who have associated with and advocated on behalf of Mujahedeen Khalq?"

Given the Generals Pace and Jones' former access to the full stories on the MEK/PMOI, I think we should assume they made an informed decision before advocating on their behalf.

8/14

re: "Rick Perry is in"

Michael at Supply Side Politics 2.0 declared a preference (if not an actual endorsement).

Money quote(s):

"Suffice it to say that I consider a Presidential candidate who holds a concealed carry permit to be a feature, not a bug."

Apparently, even in Texas, sometimes it's considered showy or impolite to open carry.

8/13

re: "Take Your Bulbs and Stick 'Em"

Emperor Misha at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler ("HQ of the Rottweiler Empire. An Affiliate of the VRWC.") was making good points right up until the talk about wading knee-deep in blood.

(Not cool.)

Money quote(s):

"(G)overnor Perry has, once again, told the fascist regime in DC to quit meddling"

What is it about Texas that her governors seem more presidential than those of other states?

"The point is that there is no Constitutional authority for the retards in the DC swamp to tell us which kind of bulb we want to purchase and, Constitutional issues aside, nobody has any fucking business interfering with consumer choice. If one choice is superior to the other, it will win out in the market place without any interference needed.

If it isn’t, then nobody has the right to force you to choose the inferior product."

The interstate commerce clause has been emanated and penumbra-ed unto death. At this point, you could probably get a majority of people in the country to vote in favor of deleting it from the Constitution (not that our system allows for such referenda, nor should it). It apparently takes the decades of legal training and judicial experience of our nine Supreme Court justices, not to mention that of generations of congressmen and such, to enable one to believe the expansive abuse of this clause is Constitutionally justified.

Because an ordinary U.S. citizen, relying solely upon their knowledge of the English language, middle school civics classes, and their own native common sense would never manage such a feat unassisted.