Rick Perry’s Heart Has Republicans Questioning His Head

Heartless.

That’s what Texas Gov. Rick Perry essentially labeled his opponents during Thursday night’s GOP debate. When the subject of illegal immigration arose, Mr. Perry found himself on the defensive as he attempted to justify a Texas law that allows certain children of illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates for public colleges and universities. Opposition to this law led Mr. Perry to say, “I don’t think you have a heart.”

With that one phrase, Mr. Perry immediately opened a massive chasm between his views on illegal immigration and those of a great number of grass-roots conservatives, who have made up the majority of the Texas governor’s support so far.

Simultaneously, Mr. Perry’s quip gave the other Republicans participating, particularly Mitt Romney, who coincidentally vetoed a similar bill while governor of Massachusetts, opportunity to take advantage of the Texan’s seemingly anti-party stance. Speaking on Friday to a group of conservative activists, Mr. Romney was quick to reference Mr. Perry’s line: “I think if you’re opposed to illegal immigration, it doesn’t mean you don’t have a heart. It means that you have a heart and a brain.”

Although he has been on the receiving end of a sizable amount of flak since the debate, Mr. Perry’s defense of the Texas law is in fact somewhat understandable. Standing firm against illegal immigration is generally a Republican staple nowadays; Mr. Perry’s line is not only fantastically newsworthy, but also surprisingly insightful to his position. Perhaps, in this case, the Texas governor has shown that geography and demographics can outweigh party ideology. As governor of the border state Texas, Mr. Perry oversees a population that is approximately 38% Hispanic, with major cities Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas boasting Hispanic populations that comprise approximately 44%, 63%, and and 37% of their respective populations. Consequently, Mr. Perry’s stance on illegal immigration is rather moderate compared to that of Mr. Romney and other GOP hopefuls.That being said, one does well to acknowledge that Mr. Perry does, in fact, regard very highly the idea of American national security:

“Equally important, Rick Perry will finally force Washington to fulfill its constitutional duty to secure our international borders. As Governor, Perry has directed hundreds of millions of dollars, manpower and resources to drastically reduce criminal activity along the border because Washington has refused to act. As President, Perry will take decisive action to defend our sovereign border because there can be no homeland security without border security.” (www.rickperry.org/issues/national-security)

Mr. Perry’s moderation when it comes to this typically very controversial issue is not new. In 2001 he led the bipartisan movement to pass legislation that would permit undocumented children of illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition for higher education at public schools. Further evidence comes through Mr. Perry’s repeated opposition to the construction of a fence the length of the Texas-Mexico border, an idea he once described as “idiocy.” In fact, Mr. Perry bucks Republican trend so much on this issue that it may not be surprising to learn that he also opposes mandating that businesses use the federal E-Verify program to check an employee’s immigration status.

Yet despite whatever logic and rationale may be behind his stance, after Thursday’s debate, Mr. Perry is now facing an uphill battle in key early nominating-states: New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina, all of which have largely non-Hispanic populations (1.6% Hispanic in New Hampshire, 3.8% in Iowa, 3% in South Carolina).

Although illegal immigration is controversial, one must keep in mind that it is by no means the number-one concern for Republican candidates or voters. However, as fear of immigration heightens in the previously mentioned states, the instances of questions about ‘anchor babies’ will inevitably rise. In this sense, then, Mr. Perry, based on his legislation in Texas, is the exception to the rest of the GOP field.

Although the majority of reactions to Mr. Perry’s position have been full of disagreement and criticism, some have come to Mr. Perry’s defense, including Lionel Sosa, a consultant on Hispanic media to George W. Bush and John McCain during their presidential nomination campaigns. “Any governor of a border state always sees things differently…If he happens to make it all the way to the end, it’ll help him with the Latino vote.”

Of course, the most noteworthy reactions and responses have been from Mr. Perry’s competitors, many of whom have enthusiastically attacked the Texas governor’s tuition legislation. Here again Mr. Romney leads the pack, having called the tuition discount a “subsidy” and a “magnet” to potential illegal immigrants. Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum also joined the growing chorus of criticism, saying that Mr. Perry is “soft on illegal immigration” and asking the question that surely many Republicans are considering themselves – “Why should they be given preferential treatment as an illegal in this country?”

There has been much speculation that, if successful over the course of the campaign trail, Mr. Perry’s departure from the party line may actually work in his favor. While his opponents, like Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum, are seeking to define themselves as staunch anti-illegal immigration candidates, Mr. Perry is avoiding the potential risk of alienating Hispanic voters, who comprise large percentages of the populations in both traditional red states and important swing states, such as Arizona, Florida, Colorado, Georgia, and North Carolina – and Texas, of course.

Perhaps Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum should heed the warning of Alfonso Aguilar, the executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles in Washington: “If you say something that antagonizes Latino voters…you’re going to have a hard time. Latinos are not going to forget.”