1. Tea Party says Perry soft on illegal aliens
2. AZ takes donations for border fence
3. IN won't appeal immigration ruling
4. MA considers tuition break for illegal aliens
5. State officials say E-Verify unworkable

1.
Perry soft on illegals, say tea partyers
Texas critics alert N.H. counterparts
The Associated Press, July 20, 2011

In spite of his thundering speeches against big government, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has a troubled relationship with the tea party, a rift increasingly obvious as he gets closer to a presidential bid.

Tea party groups from New Hampshire to Texas are collaborating to criticize Mr. Perry’s record on immigration, spending and his former affiliation with the Democratic Party.

“It’s real easy to walk into church on Sunday morning and sing from the hymnal. I saw a guy that talked like a tea party candidate but didn’t govern like one,” said Debra Medina, a Texas tea party activist who challenged Mr. Perry in the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary. “I still don’t think he governs like the conservative he professes to be.”

Texas conservatives recently shared material on Mr. Perry’s record with the New Hampshire Tea Party Coalition, which dedicated a section of its website to the Texas governor. The coalition offers links to negative media coverage and videos about the man who it says “was Al Gore’s Democrat chairman” in 1988. Mr. Perry switched to the Republican Party in 1989, around the same time as other conservative Democrats.

The organization also distributed a series of emails to supporters, including one obtained by the Associated Press warning, “We should be aware there is more to him than meets the eye.”

A key Perry strategist dismissed the tea party criticism as isolated to a handful of conservative groups in a fragmented movement.

“There’s no candidate running on either side of the aisle that has his record and relationship with tea party members,” David Carney said. “But the tea party is not one monolithic group.”

Mr. Carney concedes that Mr. Perry has work to do in early-voting states like New Hampshire.

“We have reached out to some members of the tea party leadership. But until we get the campaign going, if we have a campaign, and they have an opportunity to talk to the governor, they’re not going to know who he is and they’re going to be somewhat skeptical,” he said.

They’re particularly skeptical about Mr. Perry’s record on immigration, an issue that resonates with the Granite State’s tea party movement.

As governor, Mr. Perry signed a law making Texas the first state to offer in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, and he blasted a proposed border fence as “idiocy.” Texas tea party groups sent Mr. Perry an open letter this year expressing disappointment over his failure to get a bill passed that would have outlawed “sanctuary cities,” municipalities that protect illegal immigrants.

Mr. Perry also said that Arizona’s immigration law “would not be the right direction for Texas,” although he would later support a friend-of-the-court brief defending Arizona’s right to pass its own laws in accordance with the Constitution’s 10th Amendment.

“That’s a pretty big knock against him,” said Jerry DeLemus, chairman of the Granite State Patriots Liberty PAC, when notified of some of Mr. Perry’s immigration policies.

Still, Mr. Perry enjoys substantial support from some tea party groups, who say his conservative credentials are strong, even if not perfect.

“I don’t think there’s a purity test for who is tea party and who isn’t tea party,” said Ryan Hecker, a member of the Houston Tea Party Society and organizer of the group Contract from America. “At times, some tea party people would have liked him to be more conservative. But, generally speaking, he has an excellent record, a far better record than other candidates in the race.”
. . .
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/19/perry-soft-on-illegals-s...

********
********

2.
Arizona launches site to net cash for border fence
By Paul Davenport
The Associated Press, July 20, 2011

Arizona launched a website Wednesday to accept donations to pay for fencing along the Mexico border, and a supporter says the $3.8 million people donated to defend the state's 2010 immigration enforcement law could be just a taste of what to expect.

Gov. Jan Brewer's legal-defense site for the law known as SB1070 raised money for "an intangible service — you're paying for a lawyer," said state Sen. Steve Smith. "This, you can taste and smell what you're getting — you're paying for a secure border."

The launch of buildtheborderfence.com was keyed to Wednesday being the date most new laws passed during the Legislature's 2011 regular session go into effect.

Smith, who sponsored the legislation authorizing the fence project, said Tuesday that his initial goal is $50 million.

"It's not my end goal. If we can raise $50 million, we're off to a fabulous start," the first-term Republican said.

What the money will actually buy has yet to be determined. A border security advisory committee consisting of legislators, state agency directors and county sheriffs will make recommendations to the Legislature on how and where to spend the money.

The fencing would go on private or government land. The federal government will be asked to allow construction of fencing on its easements along the border, but Smith said he also has specific state-owned and private land in mind.

While Arizona lawmakers this year rejected several immigration enforcement measures opposed by business groups, the border fence measure didn't get as much attention.

Democratic lawmakers said it was misguided and a piecemeal approach to border security and immigration issues that should be tackled more comprehensively.

More recently, the Sierra Club said strengthened border barriers can damage the environment by causing flooding and blocking wildlife.

Smith and other Republicans argue that the federal government hasn't done enough to secure the border from crossings by illegal immigrants, drug smugglers and terrorists.

The website's initial home page shows a location on the border where fencing currently consists of a series of vertical posts to bar vehicle crossings. In the foreground, ranch barbed-wire fencing intended to restrain livestock has a big gap.

The site also includes a state official's declaration that donations may qualify as state and federal income tax deductions. But it says donors should consult their tax advisers about that.

Smith said he expects the site's content will be updated as soon as Thursday, once it is determined that its donation application is up and running reliably.

He said the advisory committee will get regular updates on how much money is raised, and a running tally may be added to the site itself.

"We're going to be extraordinarily open and transparent to the penny of what we have," he said.
. . .
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h__A07JWdzQT-0UO__DPiK...

********
********

3.
State won't appeal court ruling freezing new immigration law
By Heather Gillers
Indianapolis Star, July 19, 2011

The state will not appeal a federal court decision to put on hold parts of Indiana's new immigration law, Attorney General Greg Zoeller announced today.

U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker issued a preliminary injunction June 24 against two provisions of the law, one barring the use of consular identification cards and another allowing the arrests of people whose immigration status is questionable.

Zoeller's decision not to appeal the injunction means those parts of the law will not be enforced while Barker is hearing arguments by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana that the provisions should be thrown out.

"Hoosiers’ frustration with the federal government’s inability to enact and enforce immigration policies prompted the Legislature to turn the wheels of state government to respond to this issue -- and I remain committed to defending legislative enactments against outside challenges,” Zoeller said in a statement.

The law, Senate Enrolled Act 590, originally empowered local police to investigate drivers' immigration status. It was significantly watered down amidst opposition from many public figures, including Zoeller himself.

In her June 24 order, Barker said the law violated the Constitution's due process and search and seizure provisions, as well as other protections, by allowing local police to arrest people whose immigration status has been questioned by federal authorities -- even if those authorities have determined that a person should be able to remain in the country. Other provisions, which penalize employers for hiring illegal immigrants, remain in effect.

Zoeller, who is already appealing a separate federal court injunction that put on hold a new law de-funding Planned Parenthood, emphasized that his office is not stretched thin.

“Although our office would have adequate resources to appeal the preliminary injunction to the U.S. 7th Circuit," his statement said, "for strategic reasons we will instead push forward in U.S. District Court and vigorously oppose a permanent injunction."
. . .
http://www.indystar.com/article/20110719/NEWS/110719012/State-won-t-appe...

********
********

4.
Mass. lawmakers wade into immigrant tuition debate
The Associated Press, July 20, 2011

State lawmakers are again weighing the question of whether to allow immigrant students without legal status in Massachusetts to pay the same tuition rate at public colleges as legal residents.

The Legislature’s Committee on Higher Education is holding a public hearing at the Statehouse on Wednesday on a bill that would let the students pay the lower in-state rate provided that they’ve attended high school in Massachusetts for at least three years.

The students would also have to sign an affidavit stating that they’ve applied for permanent residency or citizenship, or plan to within three months of qualifying.

Critics of similar proposals say illegal immigrants shouldn’t be offered the same benefits as citizens or others in the state legally.

Supporters say many of the immigrant students were brought here as young children by their parents.
. . .
http://bostonherald.com.nyud.net/news/politics/view/20110720mass_lawmake...

********
********

5.
State officials say Lamar Smith’s E-Verify bill is unworkable and would cost Americans jobs
Houston Chronicle, July 20, 2011

Legislation that would require employers to use the federal E-Verify system to check the immigration status of new hires came under fire Tuesday from state lawmakers and legal authorities who said it would hurt businesses while driving jobs and undocumented workers underground.

Lamar Smith has proposed legislation that would mandate the use of E-Verify, a citizenship verification database, for businesses within six months to three years. (Official photo)

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is the lead sponsor for the bill that would require employers to use the E-Verify system, which verifies new employee’s citizenship status by checking names and Social Security numbers against databases maintained by the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security.

If Smith’s legislation became law, large companies would begin using the system to verify applicants’ status within six months and other employers would phase into the mandate over the next three years. The bill would fine employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers.

Smith has said the legislation will create jobs for Americans by preventing undocumented workers from taking jobs.

But Curt Bramble, a Republican state senator from Utah, joined Mark Shurtleff, the Republican Attorney General of Utah, in saying the proposal falls short of workable reform at a National Press Club conference panel sponsored by two business-oriented non-profit organizations, ImmigrationWorks USA and the New America Foundation.

Bramble said the U.S. economy demands cheap labor and that employers will continue to hire undocumented workers despite E-Verify.

He said the stiff penalties Smith’s legislation mandates – it grows fines for knowingly hiring an undocumented worker from $250 to $2,000 for a first offense to $2,500 to $5,000 while raising the maximum fine from $10,000 to $25,000 per employee – will simply force businesses to hire under the table and away from government regulation.

“We may as well legislate to stop the rising tide,” he said.

Bramble said because of the “abject, pathetic, dismal failure of the federal government” to take on immigration, Utah has tried to address the problem at a state level.

Both Bramble and Shurtleff supported a bill the Utah legislature passed in March that, like a milder version of Arizona’s controversial 2010 law, requires law enforcement officers to ascertain the citizenship status of any person they detain or arrest for a felony or misdemeanor.

Unlike the Arizona or federal laws, Utah’s immigration package creates a guest worker program that would allow unauthorized immigrants who lived in the state prior to May 11, 2011, to pay a $2,500 fine and pass a background check to stay and work legally. It would require a $1,000 fine of those who overstayed a visa.

“If you’re going to mandate and punish, you need some way to fill those positions legally,” Shurtleff said.

Utah’s law, HB116, won’t take effect until July 2013 and would require federal government approval – which could be problematic, since a District Court already blocked the measure pending its constitutionality in an American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center suit this May.
. . .
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/07/state-officials-say-lamar-smiths...