Big Government Defends Texas Socialism

AWR Hawkins decided to yammer on Big Government Saturday about how Rick Perry is turning out to be one big conservative disappointment and that the Klondike Clap Trap, Sarah Palin, should now enter the race and reign as the superior candidate (is Hawkins forgetting Batshit Bachmann is still in the race?).  There seems to be only one problem with Hawkins' argument against Rick Perry - it seems to support the idea of socialism in Texas.

But a strange thing happened on the way to deciding who the Republican nominee is going to be, and that strange thing was Perry’s inexplicable refusal to recant his support for a Texas tuition waiver for illegal aliens. No matter how you slice it, his ongoing defense of giving nearly $100,000 (over four years) to pay for an illegal alien to go to college is an albatross around his neck that’s so big even McRomney can see it.

Perry is good man, and in my opinion, has been one of the greatest governors to ever hold the office in Texas. But all that gets overshadowed when his response to criticism about using taxpayer monies to pay tuition for illegals is: “If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than that they’ve been brought there, through no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart.”

First, somebody on Perry’s team needs to understand that illegals who go to college aren’t “children” – they’re 18 years old or older (that’s why they’re going into college instead of pre-K).

Secondly, even if they were children, on a matter of principle the whole idea is wrong (and it’s definitely not indicative of conservatism).

Apparently, charging in-state tuition for residents of Texas is actually giving $100,000 to children men and women of Texas.  When did it become okay for conservatives to start giving out taxpayer's money?  Especially to the liberal-biased education system?

Hawkins doesn't stop there.  He goes on to try and simplify his argument for his audience and uses the following analogy:

Think about it this way: What if someone breaks into my house and their kid tags along because it’s too hot for the kid to wait in the car. The argument could then be made that the kid ended up in my house “through no fault of [his] own.” Now, does the fact that the kid had no choice obligate me to provide him with a cool drink and a snack while my house is pillaged by his father?

So what is Hawkins' solution?  Shoot dead both father and son despite only participation from the father?

Hawkins is not obligated to provide this kid with anything but he doesn't realize that his "cool drink and a snack" may come in the form of the government stepping in to arrest the father and hold the child until proper living situation can be sorted out.  Also, considering illegal immigration is a crime and the child had come "through no fault of [his] own," that child also becomes the victim, but Hawkins does not care.

I posed this question to the folks on Big Government and await for the flaming.

I was surprised to see a somewhat rational argument made by someone on Big Government though.

A reader by the name of "sulmak" made the following statement:

Despite actually biting my lip during Perry's election last November(mainly because the guy just gave me a wierd feeling), I find myself constantly defending him. No I don't agree with the in state tuition thing, but is hardly a deal breaker. It is important to consider, in Texas, there is no state income tax, which illegals often evade. There is a sales tax and a property tax, both of which illegal immigrants pay because they work fine as indirect taxes. The law required they be proven resident for years to qualify. Since in-state tuition is funded by state taxes, not federal, they pay the taxes that pay for instate tuition.

Interesting.