The Last Defense of Texas' Tuition Law

Jonathan Last has a must-read article in the Weekly Standard explaining and defending the Texas tuition law that Rick Perry's been taking hits for the past few weeks. Last starts by noting that Perry has done an awful job defending a law that's easily defensible, and I agree.

Let's start with the obvious. Perry's first answer when asked about the Texas law should have been: "What's right for Texas may not be right for every state. We in Texas decided that we wanted all of our students to be able to go to college at in-state rates. Now that's not a free education, they've still got to pay the in-state rate, but it's something. And it gets all of our students in a position to be healthy, productive members of society. This wasn't like the federal DREAM Act, which is an amnesty. I don't support amnesty."

Easy-peasy and it would have been the last we'd heard of it. Since that didn't work out, I highly recommend Last's explanation of the law and its benefits and the incoherence of the law's recent detractors. And they have been recent. The law at its time of creation and presently remains exceptionally popular in Texas.

Some excerpts follow. First, noting that this doesn't actually cost as much as the detractors would like you to believe:

Texas Republicans understood that tuition isnt all that important to the state university system. Texas schools are funded largely by the state sales tax, which everyone​​both legal and illegal residents​​pays. (Texas has no state income tax; most revenues come from consumption taxes.) Republicans argued that, as a matter of fairness, illegal immigrants had been funding the colleges just like everybody else. (This relative unimportance of tuition as a funding source is why both in-state and out-of-state tuition rates at Texas schools are far below the national average.)

Another reason was Texass Permanent University Fund, which National Reviews Kevin Williamson charmingly explains: 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. In other words, tuition at most Texas schools is used more to control enrollment than to raise funds.

Second, explaining how few slots are getting "stolen" by illegals.

It turns out that of the 1.8 million students enrolled in Texas higher-ed, only 16,476 students are illegals (the state refers to these kids as affidavit students). Of those, 12,028 go to two-year community colleges. For the most part these schools have noncompetitive admissions and hardly any out-of-state students. A vanishingly small number go to the states competitive flagship schools: The University of Texas has 612 of them; A&M has 362.

And finally, the frickin' obvious for conservatives:

[I]f the people of Texas decided to use their tax dollars to subsidize kids who grew up illegally in Texas rather than kids who grew up legally in New Jersey, thats their right.

Click over and read the whole thing. He includes quite a bit of healthy snark directed at Romney.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:28 AM



Comments

1 I don't care what Texans do with their tax money. I care what they do to attract illegals into the US.

The problem with the "it's Texas' choice" is that all the explanations focus on the kids already here, rather than on those that might come because of an overall atmosphere of permissiveness when it comes to illegality.

Posted by: pep at October 04, 2011 07:32 AM (YXmuI)

2 ... And Pep hits it out of the park!

Posted by: Anon150 at October 04, 2011 07:35 AM (OoXj6)

3 So Perry had no clue this question would be asked of him during any of the debates and couldn't prepare a remark ahead of time? That's why he lamely and leftly said we don't have hearts?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, Tea Party SOB at October 04, 2011 07:38 AM (d0Tfm)

4 f the people of Texas decided to use their tax dollars to subsidize
kids who grew up illegally in Texas rather than kids who grew up legally
in New Jersey, thats their right.

And it's equally my right to be highly critical of that decision and to point out that it provides an incentive structure for further ILLEGAL aliens to come into this country. It is no one's right to call me heartless and cruel for taking that position. Those of you who have done so, including Gov. Perry, can sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up. If the defense of your position is no more than an appeal to emotion, congratulations, you've just tipped your hand as to the precise amount of respect your position should be warranted.

Posted by: alexthechick at October 04, 2011 07:39 AM (Gk3SS)

5 The problem with the "it's Texas' choice" is that
all the explanations focus on the kids already here, rather than on
those that might come because of an overall atmosphere of permissiveness
when it comes to illegality.

Posted by: pep at October 04, 2011 07:32 AM (YXmuI)
I submit that if Illegal aliens were coming over the border for cheaper tuition, illegal immigration wouldn't be the problem it is.As I always say, your alternative is Mitt Romney, who prefers illegals stay where they belong - behind a lawnmower on his estate.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at October 04, 2011 07:41 AM (FkKjr)

6 The common refrain from the people who are at least trying to give him a chance is that by entering the race late he just wasn't prepared for these 30 sec come back response questions. (I'll call them the gotcha questions)

Regardless of his response on that question it really comes down to him or Romney. here you have to figure which is worse supporting in-state tuition or amnesty (which Romney supported).


Posted by: Vic at October 04, 2011 07:44 AM (M9Ie6)

7 3
So Perry had no clue this question would be asked of him during any of
the debates and couldn't prepare a remark ahead of time? That's why he
lamely and leftly said we don't have hearts?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, Tea Party SOB at October 04, 2011 07:38 AM (d0Tfm)
I think it explains a lot. I think he quite literally never thought about the arguments for this thing before and was too overconfident to think he needed debate prep on this and similar issues.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 04, 2011 07:44 AM (73tyQ)

8 pep

tuition is not a magnet for illegals......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at October 04, 2011 07:46 AM (eOXTH)

9 There is no possible way that the TX instate tuition law encourages illegals to cross the border.

Posted by: Vic at October 04, 2011 07:46 AM (M9Ie6)

10 I'm not buying any of it. To deal with illegal immigration by removing penalties of being here illegal, is to welcome illegal immigration. Illegal aliens are foreign nationals,complete with foreign cultural backgrounds.They should be paying the same rate as other foreign nationals.

Posted by: Cowboy at October 04, 2011 07:48 AM (So+7G)

11 overall atmosphere of permissiveness when it comes to illegality

I agree that illegals don't cross the border for tuition. However, it is a signal of our seriousness in dealing with the problem. Wink, wink is not an effective deterrent.

Posted by: pep at October 04, 2011 07:48 AM (YXmuI)

12 tuition is not a magnet for illegals......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at October 04, 2011 07:46 AM (eOXTH)
Assuming that it stops with tuition.A little bit of compassion here, a little bit of compassion there and soon you're talking real money.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 04, 2011 07:49 AM (73tyQ)

13 As I said, it doesn't really matter. You either support in-sate tuition or amnesty. On the illegals issue Perry is the lesser of the evils.

When you factor in Romney being a lying shit-weasel and liberal on all the other scores it should make it an easy decision.

Posted by: Vic at October 04, 2011 07:51 AM (M9Ie6)

14 WaPo/ABC News poll.

Obama disapproval at 54%...among adults.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 04, 2011 07:52 AM (73tyQ)

15 f the people of Texas decided to use their tax dollars to subsidize
kids who grew up illegally in Texas rather than kids who grew up legally
in New Jersey, thats their right.

Yup. And it's our right to criticize the decision where an illegal alien (a criminal) gets a tuition rate that a legal resident of another state or a legal alien does not. We've just concluded that the state of Texas just chose to subsidize illegal activity.

And I wasn't aware that something could magically change from being wrong to right if the numbers involved seemed low to someone, somewhere.

Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2011 07:53 AM (c9Ivb)

16 And it's our right to criticize the decision where an illegal alien (a
criminal) gets a tuition rate that a legal resident of another state or a
legal alien does not.

The facts are that out of State people and legals can get the same deal. All they have to do is move to the State and live there the same length of time that the illegals must live there.

The illegals aren't getting some big benefit that others aren't getting.

Posted by: Vic at October 04, 2011 07:55 AM (M9Ie6)

17 Yup. And it's our right to criticize the decision where an illegal alien
(a criminal) gets a tuition rate that a legal resident of another state
or a legal alien does not.

That's not what went on here. These are (US citizen) children of illegals.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 04, 2011 07:56 AM (73tyQ)

18 And the answer to this problem for border state governors is?

Posted by: Tami at October 04, 2011 07:58 AM (X6akg)

19 Obama Hunting Camp Marker just as offensive. Link in handle.

Posted by: Beefy Meatball at October 04, 2011 07:59 AM (bZ8J6)

20 While I generally agree with the defenses of the TX law presented - such as it's TX right to decide to do this, it still raises concerns for me with regard to Perry.

If Perry had simply said that the law was overwhelmingly popular in TX and wasn't an amnesty and then launched into a full throated argument for enforcement, enforcement, enforcement (and did not have other positions in his background demonstrating being soft on illegal immigration) - that would have been one thing.

But the way he defended this, coupled with other positions he has taken, shows that he is wrong on the issue of immigration philosophically,. that is a problem. Now - I still am supporting Perry as the most conservative viable candidate in the race. But his immigration stance troubles me.

Someone who was against the AZ law, who is against E-Verify (really, what is there to be against on it?), has done nothing about sanctuary cities in TX, and called those opposing the TX Dream Act "heartless" and implied they may be racist (different last names comment), is clearly very soft on illegal immigration. I would wager a lot of money that Perry is one of those people who thinks that if we give illegals amnesty they will magically start voting for republicans.

Now, this is not a huge fear for me as I think we can keep Perry from doing anything stupid on immigration if we control the house. But, it means that we will likely have the status quo of no real enforcement for the next 4 years (of course, that would be just as true with flip-flop Romney who is now claiming to be tough on illegal immigration even though he supported the McCain-Bush amnesty plan).

Posted by: Monkeytoe at October 04, 2011 07:59 AM (sOx93)

21
The facts are that out of State people and
legals can get the same deal. All they have to do is move to the State
and live there the same length of time that the illegals must live
there.

The illegals aren't getting some big benefit that others aren't getting.


Posted by: Vic

No, legal aliens have to go through a process to be here legally. Then they can establish residency.

And again I see where an attempt is being made to downplay this. "aren't getting some big benefit". The only persons making reference to the size is the defenders of this/Perry.

As fiscal conservatives, we should be questioning why anyone is getting any kind of "subsidy". Why is some now a sacred, protected category, to be defended and rationalized?

Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2011 08:00 AM (c9Ivb)

22 And the answer to this problem for border state governors is?

The answer is whatever the legislature and the citizens of the State want. When all the legislature but 4 want it you pretty much have to go along.

Posted by: Vic at October 04, 2011 08:00 AM (M9Ie6)

23 a magnet is when they have a child after crossing or staying illegally and that child is a citizen.......that's the magnet......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at October 04, 2011 08:00 AM (eOXTH)

24 No, legal aliens have to go through a process to be here legally. Then they can establish residency.

All they have to do is live in the state for the same number of years as the illegals. We have posted the law here multiple damn times; read it.

The rules are the same for ALL in this law.

Posted by: Vic at October 04, 2011 08:02 AM (M9Ie6)

25 The answer is whatever the legislature and the
citizens of the State want. When all the legislature but 4 want it you
pretty much have to go along.

Posted by: Vic at October 04, 2011 08:00 AM (M9Ie6)
I agree Vic....I'm just trying to understand what others think the solution should be.

Posted by: Tami at October 04, 2011 08:02 AM (X6akg)

26 the answer is remove all illegal aliens from our country.....as they are found.....remove them.....but there is not one politician or candidate that will advocate for that.....even though that is the right thing to do

Posted by: phoenixgirl at October 04, 2011 08:02 AM (eOXTH)

27 And it gets all of our students in a position to be healthy, productive members of society.
Iprotestthe idea that you can't be a productive member of society without a college degree.
I really protest the idea that an illegal alien with a college degree is poised to be a productive member of society given the continuing presence of the word ILLEGAL.

Posted by: Mama AJ at October 04, 2011 08:02 AM (XdlcF)

28 As fiscal conservatives, we should be questioning why anyone is getting any kind of "subsidy".

Subsidy???? You are starting to sound like a Democrat.

It is not a subsidy. They pay the same as everyone else.

Posted by: Vic at October 04, 2011 08:03 AM (M9Ie6)

29 the answer is remove all illegal aliens from our
country.....as they are found.....remove them.....but there is not one
politician or candidate that will advocate for that.....even though that
is the right thing to do

Posted by: phoenixgirl at October 04, 2011 08:02 AM (eOXTH)
Yes....but is that an option for governors?

Posted by: Tami at October 04, 2011 08:04 AM (X6akg)

30 I agree Vic....I'm just trying to understand what others think the solution should be.

If it were left entirely up to me with no interference from the courts I would make it impossible for ALL illegals to live here.

But it is not up to me.

Posted by: Vic at October 04, 2011 08:04 AM (M9Ie6)

31 Only 47% of applicants get accepted at the University of Texas. That means for every illegal alien accepted, some U.S. citizen or legal resident is getting shafted. Forget the money and just try to defend screwing over our own citizens in favor of illegals.

Posted by: boxty at October 04, 2011 08:06 AM (bzTtV)

32 I do find it interesting that immigration is most fervently supported by those for whom being a native English speaker provides a barrier to entry to most immigrants.

If we had a policy of importing journalists and lawyers, I think their view would be quite different.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 04, 2011 08:06 AM (73tyQ)

33 Jesus. They are here illegally. They haven't tried to become citizens since they have been here. After we subsidize their education, THEY CAN'T LEGALLY GET A JOB HERE. you think they will magically try to become citizens after? Because they have to sign something that says they will after it all. Swearsies.

You all keep saying, "he only did this for Texas". Well, he wants to be president of the while united states. Convince me he won't try to do this for every state at the federal level.

Posted by: Lifeisdeath at October 04, 2011 08:07 AM (BCxlm)

34 is clearly very soft on illegal immigration. I would wager a lot of money that Perry is one of those people who thinks that if we give illegals amnesty they will magically start voting for republicans.I think that the business community in Texas wants cheaper labor--okay, I know that and I believe that Perry is representing them well by not cracking down on illegal immigration above and beyond what the federal gov't is doing.

Posted by: Mama AJ at October 04, 2011 08:07 AM (XdlcF)

35 A little bit of compassion here, a little bit of compassion there and soon you're talking real money.
I'm stealing that.

Posted by: alexthechick at October 04, 2011 08:08 AM (VtjlW)

36 Somehow I don't think all of the outrage over this in-state tuition thing is because people are outraged over in-state tuition.

I think most of it is looking for a hammer to hit Perry with because you think SaintSarah, PanheadPaul, or RandomissueRomney should get the nod.

Posted by: Vic at October 04, 2011 08:09 AM (M9Ie6)

37 tami

not anymore....the dream act that scoamf signed slows down removal....by making ice an obstacle....and allowing "hardship" to be a reason to stay.....well everyone has a hardship....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at October 04, 2011 08:09 AM (eOXTH)

38 Ah there we go: check out number 4. It makes more sense than I gave it credit for, IF they actually check up on this:
(1) They must have resided with a parent or guardian while attending high school in Texas; (2) they must have graduated from a Texas high school or have a GED; (3) they must have gone to high school in Texas for at least the three previous years; and (4) they must file an affidavit testifying that they would apply for permanent residency as soon as possible.

Posted by: Mama AJ at October 04, 2011 08:10 AM (XdlcF)

39 They haven't tried to become citizens since they have been here.

Then they do not qualify for in-state tuition. Read the damn law.

Posted by: Vic at October 04, 2011 08:10 AM (M9Ie6)

40 the illegal children are sucking more money out of the public school system and health care system than they are from college tuition.....like a billion times more....i'm more outraged by that

Posted by: phoenixgirl at October 04, 2011 08:11 AM (eOXTH)

41 New post, looks like we are going to have another morning where the posts step all over each other then an afternoon of no posts.

Posted by: Vic at October 04, 2011 08:16 AM (M9Ie6)

42 Amazing how these illegals are impossible to find when people suggest that we deport them, but gee whiz the Govt can verify their in-state status and "path to citizenship" efforts in no time flat. Bullshit detector activated.

Posted by: Lincolntf at October 04, 2011 08:18 AM (q1Tbv)

43 The "student" is here illegally. Everything that follows should be based on the fact that the student is here, I repeat, illegally. Not only should that illegal alien not get in-state tuition, he/she should be kicked out of the country.

It never ceases to maze me how we know someone is here illegally, yet we constantly seem to completely ignore that simple fact and give them all sorts of goodies.

Amazing.

Posted by: jjmurphy at October 04, 2011 08:19 AM (xjEAl)

44 Rick Perry has my vote. All the candidates are flawed to one degree or another, but at least he has a strong record of achievement. The people of Texas wouldn't have elected him Governor 3 times unless they thought he dud a good job.

Posted by: John at October 04, 2011 08:20 AM (HmTkU)

45 Then they do not qualify for in-state tuition. Read the damn law.
I have read the damn law. As I keep pointing out, ad infinitum, there is not a requirement that those kids are trying to become citizens, there is only a requirement that they sign an affidavit stating that they will apply for permanent residency as soon as possible. That is an utterly, utterly different thing.

Posted by: alexthechick at October 04, 2011 08:22 AM (VtjlW)

46 Wow, the perry cocksuckers are out in force. Pathetic, truly pathetic.

Posted by: Oggc at October 04, 2011 08:25 AM (dgF1P)

47 Posted by: alexthechick at October 04, 2011 08:22 AM (VtjlW)

So are you going to vote for Romney instead?

Posted by: Vic at October 04, 2011 08:25 AM (M9Ie6)

48 Show me vic where this is only for the legal us citizens of illegal alien parents.

Posted by: Lifeisdeath at October 04, 2011 08:25 AM (BCxlm)

49 I get to criticize it because it is against Federal law.

Posted by: Chris at October 04, 2011 08:26 AM (xzCD8)

50 Show me vic where this is only for the legal us citizens of illegal alien parents.

It is for ALL citizens.

Posted by: Vic at October 04, 2011 08:26 AM (M9Ie6)

51 It would be more fair if they also had free tuition for children of out state criminals that were in Texas jails. Free for children of felons. Just think of the children...

Posted by: MrTea at October 04, 2011 08:28 AM (cZT2v)

52 Illegal aliens aren't citizens.

Posted by: Lifeisdeath at October 04, 2011 08:28 AM (BCxlm)

53 Only 47% of applicants get accepted at the University of Texas. That
means for every illegal alien accepted, some U.S. citizen or legal
resident is getting shafted. Forget the money and just try to defend
screwing over our own citizens in favor of illegals.

1. Do you have any evidence that "some U.S. citizen or legal resident is getting shafted." or is it a wild-assed assumption on your part?

2. I would suspect that the 47% number is an average, not a hard ceiling on the number of students allowed in. More than likely, the 53% of students not admitted failed to meet some academic standard or chose to go somewhere else after they applied.

Posted by: Iron Balls McGinty at October 04, 2011 08:28 AM (Gkhxf)

54 There is no point in following this thread. It is swamped with the Romneybots, Paulbots, and followers of Saint Sarah who are still under the delusion that she is going to run.

Give it up people.

Posted by: Vic at October 04, 2011 08:30 AM (M9Ie6)

55 Do YOU have evidence for your wild assed assumptions iron balls?

Posted by: Lifeisdeath at October 04, 2011 08:32 AM (BCxlm)

56 Awwww, poor Vic is sad that people don't universally love his candidate so there's no point to this thread. Whine, whiine, whine.

Posted by: Lincolntf at October 04, 2011 08:33 AM (q1Tbv)

57 Yes we know you are one of the < 5% here who love libstain Romney the liar.

Posted by: Vic at October 04, 2011 08:35 AM (M9Ie6)

58 What happened to electability of a candidate being the standard around here? I don't agree with it, but you rinos seem to. How is Perry doing in any recent polls? Usually 4th if he's lucky. Doesn't sound very electable to me.

Posted by: Lifeisdeath at October 04, 2011 08:40 AM (BCxlm)

59 "Libstain liar"! Nyaaah, nyaaah, nyyaaah. Quick Vic, now make fun of his hair, his wealth, etc. I miss your pathetic lapses into dementia every time someone says Romney. (Oh and he's a Yankee too, so you can get your Confederate wood on!). Bitter old crank.

Posted by: Lincolntf at October 04, 2011 08:42 AM (FzVlt)

60 31 Only 47% of applicants get accepted at the University of Texas. That means for every illegal alien accepted, some U.S. citizen or legal resident is getting shafted. Forget the money and just try to defend screwing over our own citizens in favor of illegals.
Posted by: boxty




Very few illegals are going to the state universities. A big reason why it is so difficult to get in is because of our top 10% law which allows the top 10% of every high school in the state to be admitted to a state university of their choice. I am pretty sure that in order to go to UT@Austin you need to be in the top 8% because so many want to go there.

I am not a big fan of this because it lets students taking "easy" classes qualify more easily than those taking AP and more difficult subjects.

Posted by: macintx at October 04, 2011 08:48 AM (ucs8Y)

61 Jonathan Last has a must-read article in the Weekly Standard explaining and defending the Texas tuition law that Rick Perry's been taking hits for the past few weeks. Last starts by noting that Perry has done an awful job defending a law that's easily defensible, and I agree.
GREAT.
Maybe Perry can take a clue from those kids that hired someone else to take the SATs for them, and get Jonathan Last to show up at the next debate, wearing a Perry wig...

Posted by: CoolCzech at October 04, 2011 08:48 AM (Iaxlk)

62 (4) they must file an affidavit testifying that they would apply for permanent residency as soon as possible.Yeah, except that Lee lost at Gettysburg - in large part - because he ordered Gen. Ewell to take Little Round top (defended by a semaphore station) 'if practicable' instead of just ordering him to take the damned hill. Ewell decided it wasn't practicable, the Union realized the strategic oversight they had made, entrenched units (including the 20th Maine), and killed hundreds and hundreds of Confederate soldiers who had to try to take it later. "As soon as possible" is absolutely asinine. If it read that in order to receive in-state tuition, an applicant had to also submit their residency papers, I'd be on board. As it is written, it's just like Lee's orders to Ewell. The result will be similar.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at October 04, 2011 08:51 AM (wnbjH)

63 Texans are perfectly within their rights to set up an incentive structure that encourages felonies. Haha

Posted by: DoDoGuRu at October 04, 2011 08:52 AM (iyZg2)

64 I think that the business community in Texas wants cheaper labor--okay, I know that and I believe that Perry is representing them well by not cracking down on illegal immigration above and beyond what the federal gov't is doing.

Posted by: Mama AJ


Mama AJ I love reading your posts Yes your probably right about the cheaper labor but the federal government is doing NOTHING about illegal immigration.

Posted by: macintx at October 04, 2011 08:52 AM (ucs8Y)

65 The spin on the illegal situation is not what Perry would have you believe. Contrary to Last's article, tuition rates are soaring in Texas, up 67-107% in all state universities. And the allotted apportionment of sales tax does not cover the costs. So the in-state tuition thing is subsidized by higher tuition rates for those that pay - 20% right off the top is confiscated to pay for those who can't/ won't pay.

And another thing about my governor's record: he touts job creation as his top accomplishment. This Conservative Texan wants you to know it's not what it seems. What Perry hopes you don't find out is that the vast majority of those new jobs did NOT go to Americans!

http://cis.org/immigrants-filled-most-new-jobs-in-Texas

Of jobs created in Texas since 2007, 81 percent were taken by newly arrived immigrant workers (legal and illegal).

Of newly arrived immigrants who took a job in Texas, 93 percent were not U.S. citizens. Thus government data show that more than three-fourths of net job growth in Texas were taken by newly arrived non-citizens (legal and illegal).

Posted by: Redhead Infidel at October 04, 2011 08:56 AM (o1478)

66 Do YOU have evidence for your wild assed assumptions iron balls?

All I did was suggest that there are other possibilities. His argument was the standard anti-affirmative-action argument. I seriously doubt that the universities have a quota for illegals. They likely have a max class size they want, but I am sure they would still admit a qualified applicant even if it pushed them over that cap. Common sense would tell you that the students not admitted probably didn't reach that standard.

Granted, there are many schools that will admit a student who is not qualified and then run them through a remedial program before granting them full admission.

Posted by: Iron Balls McGinty at October 04, 2011 09:03 AM (Gkhxf)

67 If you want more of a behavior, reward it.

If you want less of a behavior, punish it.

The Gods of the Copybook Headings may not be fun guys but they are damned reliable.

Posted by: The Chap in the Deerstalker Cap at October 04, 2011 09:06 AM (qndXR)

68 Perry needs to hit it out of the park at the next debate... or it will be over for him. That is a pretty clear fact, I think.
I listend to Coulter supporting Chris Christie on TV. Granted, she is so blinded by him she has his photo sewn into the crotch of her panties, but she actually made a strong case that he is NOT a gun grabber or as RINO as I have believed. So who knows? Is a guy named Chris(t) <b>Christ</b>ie the Second Coming??

Posted by: CoolCzech at October 04, 2011 09:07 AM (Iaxlk)

69 Very few illegals are going to the state universities. A big reason why it is so difficult to get in is because of our top 10% law which allows the top 10% of every high school in the state to be admitted to a state university of their choice. I am pretty sure that in order to go to UT@Austin you need to be in the top 8% because so many want to go there.

Posted by: macintx at October 04, 2011 08:48 AM

Actually, minorities, specifically Hispanics, have a lesser standard to meet for the 10% rule - amongst themselves, not the general student population.

For instance, the PSAT test, which determines eligibility for the National Merit scholarship on a state-by-state basis requires a score of 215 to become a State semi-finalist for the National award. Unless you're Hispanic, then your score must only be 203 to qualify as a Texas semi-finalist.

Similar affirmative action standards are applied to the admissions process. The Top 10% rule manages to exclude far too many of our true Top 10% of Texan students. Ask any competitive high school student and they will tell you the Top 10% rule is a farce for them. Why? Because after affirmative action, there is simply less room for the highest achievers. And they know it - it's a joke.

Posted by: Redhead Infidel at October 04, 2011 09:08 AM (o1478)

70 I don't care about hearts or what.

If you are here illegally, tough shit on anything. Get beat up, robbed, killed, raped - thanks for the report - oh look, you're illegal, deport, persona non-grata - no complaining witness.... CASE DISMISSED!

Tough shit. It's a consequence of being illegal. Your choice to live outside the law, so you should live a life of fear. It's your motivation to not do it to begin with.

Posted by: Gonzman at October 04, 2011 09:09 AM (AKlwH)

71 (macintx is supposed to be block quoted in my comment above. The tags got stripped out.)

Posted by: Redhead Infidel at October 04, 2011 09:10 AM (o1478)

72 What happened to electability of a candidate being the standard around here? I don't agree with it, but you rinos seem to. How is Perry doing in any recent polls? Usually 4th if he's lucky. Doesn't sound very electable to me.
The two last polls out (Fox News and ABC News) had Perry 2nd (not 4th) and trailing Romney by 4 and 8 points). In head to head, Perry has been within the MOE of Obama with both under 45 percent. Which is significant because undecides tend to break (at this point in the game) toward the challenger.
So, your definition of "electable" must be different from every other professionals definition of electable. In otherwords, your definition is "I don't like him........"

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at October 04, 2011 09:16 AM (OWjjx)

73 Perry needs to hit it out of the park at the next debate... or it will be over for him. That is a pretty clear fact, I think.
Perry needs to be better. He is not at a point where it is win or go home....its more hey, we were bad at first, much better now and the trajectory is pointing one way.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at October 04, 2011 09:17 AM (OWjjx)

74 The Top 10% rule manages to exclude far too many of our true Top 10% of Texan students.

Posted by: Redhead Infidel


Now in that I agree with you 100%.

Posted by: macintx at October 04, 2011 09:22 AM (ucs8Y)

75 I love reading your posts
Why thank you much!

Posted by: Mama AJ at October 04, 2011 09:26 AM (XdlcF)

76 As fiscal conservatives, we should be questioning why anyone is getting any kind of "subsidy".Subsidy???? You are starting to sound like a Democrat. It is not a subsidy. They pay the same as everyone else.
Posted by: Vic

Try reading the post before smearing anyone who dares disagree with you. The phrase below is from the post.

And finally, the frickin' obvious for conservatives:

f the people of Texas decided to use their tax dollars to subsidize kids who grew up illegally in Texas rather than kids who grew up legally in New Jersey, thats their right.

Posted by: Blue Hen at October 04, 2011 09:33 AM (6rX0K)

77 the illegals going to college and getting a degree and becoming an accountant or engineer or something productive are the ones we need to work on making citizens. any that get degrees in law or teaching should be deported back home so they can engage in rabble-rousing back in mexico.

Posted by: chas at October 04, 2011 09:34 AM (TKF1Y)

78
I am definitely bookmarking this page and sharing it with my friends.


Posted by: Forks Over Knives Epub at October 04, 2011 09:41 AM (AEzwr)

79 So does anyone else besides Coulter thinks that Chris(t) Christ(ie) is the Second Coming for Republicans?

Posted by: CoolCzech at October 04, 2011 09:53 AM (Iaxlk)

80 81 No No No No No No No No and Never!

Is that clear enough?

Posted by: macintx at October 04, 2011 09:54 AM (ucs8Y)

81 Well, Coulter did make a strong case that is NOT a RINO... NOT a gun grabber. I didn't hear her address the GW thing, though.

Posted by: CoolCzech at October 04, 2011 09:56 AM (Iaxlk)

82 I don't understand why no one ever wants to address the big white politically incorrect elephant in the room. These illegals aren't going to go away until we address the large group of people in the US that don't want to work and live off of welfare, food stamps and unemployment. Several bills have come before the Texas legislature to clamp down on the illegals and punish those who hire them. But, let's be frank - the bills never make it through because powerful businessmen pressure the legislature not to pass them. Why? Because whether you like it or not, most of the illegals are here to make money and send back home to their impoverished families - so they are hard workers. And, since they are willing to do backbreaking work with no questions, versusthose people who don't really want to work, don't show up, file continuous grievances and lawsuits agains their employers, who do you think the employers want to hire? We have a construction company here in Texas called Williams Brothers who get all of the road construction project contracts. My husband pointed out to me last week that there are no black or white workers on those projects. It's true, everyone of the workers that I saw were Mexican.

Posted by: Old Texas Chick at October 04, 2011 09:57 AM (lLXZV)

83 I still can't believe we are going to pass on Perry 'cause he ain't a smooth talker and Michelle Malkin got her panties twisted beyond repair.
Romney? That is the only guy that will repeat the 0bama majic of 2008; he is the only guy that will depress the base while enraging and energizing the liberals.
He will be burned to the ground over the fact that the Morman church didn't allow blacks full membership until 1978--guaranteed to rile up the black vote to 2008 levels along with the always outraged at racism left.
He will absolutly kill the enthusiasm of the base--how do you get excited about Mr. Against and For pretty much every conservative position? Gun control, abortion, 0bamacare, taxes---how many different positions can the guy who LOST to McCain have before we realize he is nothing but a sacrificial lamb for the JEF?
Have you seen any stories in the media near as critical of Romney as they've been of any other candidate? They want him, they love him, he is the perfect candidate. For 0bama to beat.
How's he going to explain why he is a member in good standing of a church that treated blacks as second class citizens as late as 1978? How's he going to answer that question to 0bama's face in a debate? How's Mr. Smooth Talker going to talk his way out of what will be by then painted as membership in a modern day KKK? You think the racist rock shit was bad? Hell, that's some janitor setting up the folding chairs the day before--we haven't even gotten to under-card bouts yet, let alone the main event.
The only way out he'll see is the way of the "good" Republican: Attack other Republicans. And all of us will be on the other end of that attack.
And Cain? Way to pile on in as stupid as a way possible, just like that fuckwad T-Paw, you showed your instincts are full-kowtow-media-stupid. The only answer should have been an attack on the media. But, no: You jumped like a trained circus animal through the media hoop.

Posted by: Jimmuy at October 04, 2011 10:05 AM (ibeMV)

84 For those of you concerned with the "magnet" issue: The SCOTUS has ruled that we must provide free education to the children of illegals.

Rather than blaming the states who have to deal with the illegal problem on a large scale as best they can, how about you start asking the candidates what they will do at the federal level, should they get the job, to cut off these free bennies to illegals.

The candidate who can answer that question correctly is the one that should get your vote.

Posted by: mpurinTexas, Evil Conservanatrix, supports Rick Perry, bitch at October 04, 2011 10:05 AM (pY3GI)

85 Why shouldn't illegals be given in-state tuition?
Because they are here illegally. That's it. That's all. Someone who lives in Florida who wants to go to UT should not pay more than someone who is in Texas illegally, no matter how long they have been here illegally. The policy is wrong on its face.
As for Perry and the next debate, it isn't very encouraging to get word from a candidate's wife that after three debate disasters he'll be prepared for this one.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 04, 2011 10:06 AM (b68Df)

86 10
I'm not buying any of it. To deal with illegal immigration by removing
penalties of being here illegal, is to welcome illegal immigration.
Illegal aliens are foreign nationals,complete with foreign cultural
backgrounds.They should be paying the same rate as other foreign
nationals.

Posted by: Cowboy at October 04, 2011 07:48 AM (So+7G

So get your lazy ass down to the local Home Depot or where ever the day labors hang out and load them criminals up and get them back to Mexico. What? No, you're not going to do that?
Oh, so you are soft on illegal immigration 'cause you're not enforcing the penalties of being here illegally. Hey, don't get mad: You're the one letting them stay here, not me.
Or maybe you could drop the stupidity and realize that a couple of hundred bucks per year to someone who is motivated enough to go to college isn't the "deal-breaker" you imagine it to be that will send them and their entire dirty illegal family racing back to Mexico.

Posted by: Jimmuy at October 04, 2011 10:12 AM (ibeMV)

87 Old Texas Chick you are really getting desperate to spin for Perry when you go the 'mexicans are good. White people bad' route.

Mr. Jimmuy hasn't a clue on Romney's positions. He's like a parrot repeating what he's been told.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 04, 2011 10:22 AM (8c9g6)

88 I am all for allowing illegals to become citizens if:
1) they take someone on life long welfare and drag them across the border to mexico.
2) they take a democrat/socialist/marxist and drag them across the border.
That two-fer will get you a US residency card.

Posted by: Rob in Katy at October 04, 2011 10:24 AM (gdGJ1)

89 Last is in the tank for Perry in a big way and this defense is singularly unconvincing.

It's the same 'oh, he just communicated badly' defense that liberals always use when Americans don't like Obama's policies.

Maybe the reason we disagree with Perry isn't that we're heartless and the reason we disagree with Last isn't that we're stupid. It's that they're wrong and we're right.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at October 04, 2011 10:24 AM (epBek)

90 Sorry jimmy, but your guy hunted at n i g g e r head. How is that gonna go over?

Posted by: Lifeisdeath at October 04, 2011 10:25 AM (BCxlm)

91 #76 besides the point you made that the post used the word, subsidized, the fact is illegal students also get free tuition in the form of State tuition assistance.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 04, 2011 10:28 AM (8c9g6)

92
your disconnect is astounding.

Posted by: fuck you vic at October 04, 2011 10:31 AM (BvcRQ)

93 Oh, so Romney has always been a strong 2nd Amendment supporter?
Oh, so Romney has always been against abortion?
Oh, so Romney has always been against single-payer health-care?
Oh, so Romney has always been against amnesty?

And what about Mr. Romney's church? How you gonna spin that? Go ahead and polish up that turd.

I've been following Mood Ring Romney for 5 years now; supported him over McCain, was pissed when I saw how FL was breaking in the primary 'cause I knew it meant we were stuck with McCain. And here we are all set to go down the same path for that loser to McCain--but with ignoring the added hindsight that McCain was an embarrassment of a challenger.

You know what? Every single self-proclaimed conservative Texan I've met who is anti-Perry? Scratch the surface and you find a nice little RINO/Democrat underneath. It was so with the Kinky people, it was so with the Kay Hutch people, it's so with anti-Perry today.


Posted by: Jimmuy at October 04, 2011 10:33 AM (ibeMV)

94 You know what? Every single self-proclaimed conservative Texan I've met
who is anti-Perry? Scratch the surface and you find a nice little
RINO/Democrat underneath. It was so with the Kinky people, it was so
with the Kay Hutch people, it's so with anti-Perry today.



Don't forget the Paulbots!

Posted by: mpurinTexas, Evil Conservanatrix, supports Rick Perry, bitch at October 04, 2011 10:37 AM (pY3GI)

95 Mr. Jimmuy hasn't a clue on Romney's positions.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 04, 2011 10:22 AM (8c9g6)

Neither does anyone else. Romney's positions are whatever he thinks people want to hear that day. The greasy fuck is too slick by half.

Posted by: grognard at October 04, 2011 10:39 AM (NS2Mo)

96 Those "productive members of society" can't be legally employed anywhere in the United States, regardless of education. So that answer fails to satisfy, although it clarifies your position: You don't really give a damn about illegal immigration.

Posted by: Chris at October 04, 2011 10:51 AM (3GtyG)

97 I have a clue because I read beyond the opposition slogans and half truth memes. I'm not trying to educate or convince any of you. You choose to be ignorant of the facts. So be it.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 04, 2011 10:53 AM (8c9g6)

98 Basic Law and Order.
Its IS still a felony to knowingly Harbor Illegal Aliens. This Law grants a way for people who are Illegal to bypass the normal checks on birth and citizenship specificly FOR Illegals... thus creating a Legal Path.
If creating a specific exemption FOR an illegal to do somthing, ONLY becauce they are illegal, is not a form of 'harboring'... and as this Laws INTENT is to bypass those checks... then is not Texas Conspiring to help illegals...

Posted by: Romeo13 at October 04, 2011 10:59 AM (NtXW4)

99 The answer is whatever the legislature and the
citizens of the State want. When all the legislature but 4 want it you
pretty much have to go along.

Posted by: Vic at October 04, 2011 08:00 AM (M9Ie6)

Because the federal gov't rightfully has authority over immigration, there should be a federal law prohibiting states or municipalities from providing any services, subsidies, grants or payments to any illegal immigrant. That would resolve the problem with states deciding to do these things.

Posted by: Monkeytoe at October 04, 2011 11:01 AM (sOx93)

100 89 Old Texas Chick you are really getting desperate to spin for Perry when you go the 'mexicans are good. White people bad' route.
Not spinning for Perry. He lost my support when he crashed at the debates. I am simply telling you what I see. We had a congresswoman from the Houston area try to get through a bill in August to punish employers for hiring illegals. It was really kind of a two-faced bill, because it allowed for illegal housekeepers, but disallowed for every other illegal job. I never could understand why it couldn't get going in the legislature other than pressure from businessmen to stop it. I didn't say the Mexicans are good. I said that they are hard workers compared to some that should be doing the jobs.

Posted by: Old Texas Chick at October 04, 2011 11:05 AM (lLXZV)

101 And on a Libertarian type note...
If it is Illegal for these people to WORK here, why are we TRAINING them? So Mexico can have a better educated workforce?

Posted by: Romeo13 at October 04, 2011 11:09 AM (NtXW4)

102 I'm from Texas and I actually suspect I am more liberal about immigration than most of you and I still don't see the point of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.

I've lived in Texas since 1985 and I didn't even know about this law until it came up in the debates.

This law clearly has the philosophy that the legal status of the immigrants is a "technicality", and something that can be "interpreted". I think that is an argument one can make, but it's obviously an argument many disagree with as well, I think it's very reasonable that people can conclude that the proponents of the law see the issue from an entirely different philosophical position and that it may be a deal breaker for support.

Additionally, Perry is kind of an asshole anyway. I don't mind someone all that bright if their philosophy is close to mine, but if they have no philosophy then the lack of brightness is a problem because they can be used and twisted and turned by others.

Posted by: Tommy V at October 04, 2011 11:29 AM (J2Str)

103 You know what? Every single self-proclaimed conservative Texan I've met who is anti-Perry? Scratch the surface and you find a nice little RINO/Democrat underneath. It was so with the Kinky people, it was so with the Kay Hutch people, it's so with anti-Perry today.

I live in Texas and have voted straight GOP tickets all my life. While not "anti-Perry" I've never reallybeen a fan of the guy. He isn't especially popular in Texas either. Things like the DREAM act, the Trans Texas Corridor debacle, and the nomination of Democrat and David Souter fan Xavier Rodriguez to the Texas Supreme Court haven't sat well with a lot of people here, many of whom are hardcore conservatives.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 04, 2011 11:34 AM (b68Df)

104 So if it is illegal for illegal immigrants to work here why in the world are states mandated to educate illegals K-12? Does this make sense to anyone?

Posted by: macintx at October 04, 2011 11:37 AM (ucs8Y)

105 Wrong on all counts, but the last is the worst. The taxpayers of Texas do not have the Constitutional authority to aid, abet, and assist illegal aliens to remain in the United States. We all recognize that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution gives the Federal government the authority over immigration. Congress has spoken on the issue and makes aiding, abetting or assisting illegal aliens to remain a crime, 8 United States Code Section 1324 and 1324a.
Texas cannot maintain its own immigration policy. I might like illegal immigration, but it cannot thwart Federal law on the issue. If you support the 10th Amendment, you must recognize that it reinforces Congresses authority in the area of immigration. And Congress has further stated that States may not give in-state tuition to illegal aliens unless it treats out of state American citizen and legal permanent resident aliens in the same manner.
But in any event, these illegal alien students cannot work in the United States, so providing them with a cheap university education is both wasteful and futile. The only employment available to them is in the underground economy, for which you don't need any sort of degree, much less the useless degrees the illegal aliens are actually getting, like women's studies, La Raza Studies, Ethnic Studies, Sociology, law, etc.
I doubt if any are getting any useful degree in any event. So how can this law be defended with any honesty?

Posted by: Federale at October 04, 2011 11:40 AM (osx1V)

106 So does anyone else besides Coulter thinks that Chris(t) Christ(ie) is the Second Coming for Republicans?

Posted by: CoolCzech at October 04, 2011 09:53 AM (Iaxlk)
No! A thousand times no!

Posted by: Mark Levin, Krispie Kreme Christie Must Go! at October 04, 2011 11:43 AM (tQHzJ)

107 81 Sorry to be a dunce but are you saying that the SC court did NOT rule that illegal immigrants shall be educated by the states? Wasn't this law passed back in the 1980's?

Posted by: macintx at October 04, 2011 11:56 AM (ucs8Y)

108 One of the reasons why the Dems hate Rick Perry so much is because they know that he will syphon off a couple million semi-conservative voters from them.....maybe more.
This is how Reagan won with landslides, twice. ....It is those landslide victories that contribute to the glowing nostalgia that Republicans feel toward Ronald Reagan.
Personally, I don'tlike this tuition-for-children-of-illegals thing one bit. ....In fact, I hate it.
But you cannot win the Presidency by bashing illegals. ....That's a fact. ....And I hate that too.
We need a landslide victory this time......or it will be tied up in court forever. ...Remember the 2000 election? ....That was the last time we had an entrenched Dem-lawyer in the white house, and it should serve as a preview for what we could be in for this time with removing Obama.
Perry kicked the Trial Lawyers in the teeth in Texas. ....So they are gunning for him. ....They will stop at nothing to keep him from being elected.
Wouldn't it be great to finally have a President who would give us the Tort Reform that we have needed for so long? ....That is what the Trail Lawyers fear.
This is just one of the reasons why I am still on the Perry bandwagon.
So is Senator Jim Inhofe. ....Inhofe has been the single biggest fighter against the McCain/Bush/Graham amnesty agenda.....and Inhofe endorsed Rick Perry a month ago, without hesitation....knowing full well about this 10 year old tuition thing.

Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 04, 2011 12:41 PM (63L/a)

109 I sent a comment to the writer of the article yesterday, and I'll repeat here today.
1. We don't treat people based on the way their last name sounds/we're not heartless bs. Don't call me racist or anything else because I disagree with you. You've already lost me with that.
2. Straw-man (and a poor one at that) with the false choice between in state tuition and being on the government dole. Illegals aren't supposed to be on the government dole. And hey, nothing stops them from paying out of state tuition, or going to another state that does offer it and taking advantage of it there.
3. Ties into #2. If they are illegal, they (theoretically) can't work anyway, so their options are 1. leave the country, 2. identity theft, or 3. employer disregarding the immigration status and hiring anyway.
Yes, Perry could have explained it better. But even with the perfect explanation, it wouldn't change 2 and 3 above. Illegal means no benefits and no job (at least it's supposed to mean that).

Posted by: Jon in TX at October 04, 2011 01:53 PM (lRqIF)

110 112 <blockquote>But you cannot win the Presidency by bashing illegals. ....That's a fact. ....And I hate that too.</blockquote>
Who says you have to bash them? How about bashing the feds for not doing their job. How about requiring employers to use e-Verify? You don't have to bash illegals in order to get control of the situation. You can be strongly pro-immigration and strongly anti illegal immigration at the same time.

Posted by: Jon in TX at October 04, 2011 01:56 PM (lRqIF)

111 Uh, what do you think the DREAM act is, exactly? That's part of what it does: forces states to give in-state tuition to people who aren't even legal residents. But only if they are illegal immigrants who happen to live there. If you're a legal citizen of the US but don't have legal residence in Texas, you're SOL.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 04, 2011 02:23 PM (r4wIV)

112 And the answer to this problem for border state governors is?


Gee I dunno, ask states like Arizona who've changed their immigration laws and illegals fled.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 04, 2011 02:24 PM (r4wIV)

113 Driver's licenses. In-state tuition. And on and on. The Feds announce they'll only bother trying to deport an ever smaller group of illegals who are also convicted criminals but the crimes needed to get this attention are becoming such that only a narco cartel mass executioner might be asked, nicely, to leave the country. After he's done with his shopping.

At what point does the law mean anything when there is always a bleeding heart excuse to do no enforcement? Why has it become so difficult for so many to favor US citizens over those who are not when it comes to expenditure of US resources? That so many have to even give this lengthy thought is a sad indicator of how far we've fallen away from what the founders had in mind.

Is this a make or break for a candidate? Unfortunately, no. Not because the issue doesn't matter but because the field sucks so much and incumbent is so stunningly awful. Likewise on Romney. If he ends up being the GOP candidate, what choice do I have but to support him in spite of RomneyCare, which under any rational circumstances should have ended his political career.

The real problem is that even if they lose the White House in 2012, the left has won. We've shifted so far in their desired direction we can now only discuss the pace at which we continue down that path. Supposedly conservative leaders are so far gone they cannot comprehend why things that should be absolutely unacceptable are thus. This is why it was annoying to hear Christie speechify about compromise. At some point there has to be a line you don't cross because what lies on the other side is purely wrong. Compromise that makes the line fainter opens the opportunity to erase it entirely.

Posted by: epobirs at October 04, 2011 02:55 PM (kcfmt)

114 This is why it was annoying to hear Christie speechify about compromise.
At some point there has to be a line you don't cross because what lies
on the other side is purely wrong. Compromise that makes the line
fainter opens the opportunity to erase it entirely.

Now you know why some of us are no longer willing to partake of the GOP-served shit sandwich anymore.

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at October 04, 2011 03:20 PM (1rHeD)

115 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at October 04, 2011 05:47 PM (fyOgS)

116 I'm not buying any of it. To deal with illegal immigration by removing penalties of being here illegal, is to welcome illegal immigration. Illegal aliens are foreign nationals, complete with foreign cultural backgrounds. They should be paying the same rate as other foreign nationals. Posted by: Cowboy at October 04, 2011 07:48 AM (So+7G

So get your lazy ass down to the local Home Depot or where ever the day labors hang out and load them criminals up and get them back to Mexico. What? No, you're not going to do that?
Oh, so you are soft on illegal immigration 'cause you're not enforcing the penalties of being here illegally. Hey, don't get mad: You're the one letting them stay here, not me.
Or maybe you could drop the stupidity and realize that a couple of hundred bucks per year to someone who is motivated enough to go to college isn't the "deal-breaker" you imagine it to be that will send them and their entire dirty illegal family racing back to Mexico.
Posted by: Jimmuy at October 04, 2011 10:12 AM (ibeMV)

Jimmuy, go play in traffic, douchebag.

Posted by: Cowboy at October 04, 2011 08:01 PM (So+7G)

117 The answer is whatever the legislature and the
citizens of the State want. When all the legislature but 4 want it you
pretty much have to go along.<a href="http://www.cheaplouboutinsonsale.com">Christian Louboutin On Sale</a>

Posted by: Louboutin Shoes at October 04, 2011 10:06 PM (OYOyD)

118 Or maybe you could drop the stupidity and realize that a couple of hundred bucks per year to someone who is motivated enough to go to college isn't the "deal-breaker" you imagine it to be that will send them and their entire dirty illegal family racing back to Mexico.Louboutins On Sale

Posted by: Cheap Louboutins at October 04, 2011 10:09 PM (OYOyD)

119 Its impossible to justify subsidizing illegals at the expense of Americans. There is no other way to parse this. There is no justification for denying some Americans an education so that an illegal can benefit.

This is just another indication of the decay and corruption of our system and society when we have people who can support a system that denies justice to those who merit it while providing it to lawbreakers.

No sale. You might as well attempt to tell us Reagan was a RINO or supported illegal immigration.

But knowing this David Brooks wanna be he will.

Posted by: Molon Labe at October 05, 2011 10:12 PM (S7K8x)

120 buy windows 7 cd key buy wedding dress CD Keys ARMA 2 CD Key Call of Duty CD Key Company of Heroes CD Key Command Conquer CD Key Dawn of War 2 CD Key Dead Space CD Key Fallout 3 CD Key Mass Effect 2 CD Key Silent Hunter 5 CD Key The Sims 3 CD Key GTA 4 CD Key NFS CD Key Titan Quest CD Key RUSE CD Key F1 2010 CD Key Two Worlds 2 CD Key Star Trek Online CD Key Spore CD Key Far Cry 3 CD Key Dungeons CD Key Dragon Age CD Key Divinity 2 CD Key Dead Space 2 CD Key Crysis 2 CD Key Cities XL 2011 CD Key HomeFront CD Key Shogun 2 Total War CD Key Fable 3 CD Key PES 2011 CD Key Duke Nukem Forever CD Key Dungeon Siege 3 CD Key FEAR 3 CD Key NBA 2K11 CD Key RIFT CD Key Red Faction: Armageddon CD Key Dead Island CD Key Driver San Francisco CD Key Deus Ex: Human Revolution CD Key F1 2011 CD Key From Dust CD Key Red Orchestra 2 CD Key Tropico 4 CD Key Might Magic Heroes 6 CD Key MineCraft CD Key Rage CD Key DCS A-10C Warthog CD Key

Posted by: bnvvmcvp5 at October 07, 2011 12:14 AM (m1Y7w)

121 This is very cool. I loved

Posted by: Cheap Football jerseys at October 07, 2011 01:26 AM (8hjeq)

122 bladesoul rmtTERA RMTAION RMTTERA RMTC9 RMTåɥȩ` RMTredstone rmt RMTƩ` RMT륽` RMTFF14 RMTFNO RMTᥤץ륹ȩ`` RMTͩ`2 RMTɥ饴ͥ RMTȥƥ RMTRO RMTLҰ RMTL RMT륿 RMTɥ饴˥ RMTcabal rmtͩ` RMTAION RMTTERA RMTåɥȩ` RMTredstone rmtC9 RMTͩ`2 RMTɥ饴ͥRMTƩ` RMTᥤץ륹ȩ`` RMT RMTLҰ RMTL RMT륽` RMT륿 RMTɥ饴˥ RMTcabal rmtɥ饴ͥ RMTFNO RMT

Posted by: blade&soul at October 14, 2011 04:13 AM (mnmu0)






Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0775 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0616 seconds, 131 records returned.
Page size 96 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat