In response to Zack’s comment, first of all, always get your facts right before you criticize or dump border issue solely on this administration.  There is more happening and you need to understand the undercurrent before making a one sided statement. What if the border is another of Governor Perry’s statement and appearance by implication, that, “Texas is another country and could not be subjected to “The New Colossus” on the Statue of Liberty?

Anyway, rather than imply, let’s look at this from the point of law, tax, revenue and of course emergency action – if needed and how it should be applied.

Regardless of whether red or blue, the concerned states in this case will be – Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California. You’ll see that as at now, these states have more residents on federal support and in federal employment than any other state in America.

Advantage to them, they pay lower (local/state) tax than the rest of the country. And these concerned states would rather keep their share of (low) revenue – low, and continue drawing more from the federal purse. All the while, state revenue remains low and constant, but federal payments like salaries, pensions and state allocation keeps going up.

Now if you think about this disparity between these states, the rest of America, their revenue, their share of federal funding and compare to New York (New Yorkers) for example, you’ll come to see three things:

First: their state return on taxes to the federal purse shows a low return on income tax they paid on every taxpayer dollar spent. In business and banking, creditors will be seen as ‘default states’ but by law, they are excluded from the federal funding. Because any type of the loans or a guaranteed component of credit does not represent permanent transfer (like salaries or pensions) from the federal government to a state.

Now this brings us to the second issue: think of federal funding as a percentage of state revenue. If these state’s annual revenue is lower than what they are spending or propose to spend, then the extra bit is provided by the federal government.

Yes this extra bit could be found elsewhere, but the best way to prevent New Yorkers from footing the bill is for these states to generate extra revenue. They could easily do it by local state tax hikes. But if New Yorkers have to foot the bill, then key state services would suffer.

Sadly in this case, it is the border rather than the third option: the number of federal employees per capita. As said before, bear in mind that the federal government is a major state provider of workforce and that a large adult percentage in these states population owe their livelihood to Washington.

Now, can you say the same of New Yorkers’? No. So the undertone is why should we bear more burden or what this administration is saying to Rick Perry and others like him is why should the rest of America bear the burden by substituting your expenses if you keep operating on deficit?

See, border issue has always been there. It has been addressed many times, and beefed up by different administrations – including the present one. The Federal govt. is doing what it is supposed to do, but some of these states are not.

For example, this administration has introduced constant drone surveillance and beefed up the DEA and Custom and Excise in numbers and materiel. Now with the draw down and closure of bases in Europe, it is possible to increase border patrol and presence… but according to border/territorial law and not in a para-military way – as some militias in some of these states have been doing.

Meanwhile, some of these states (up till now) won’t pay federal taxes and haven’t pay for decades.

So where is the money for maintaining the current border patrol coming from? Hard working New Yorkers! Paying all kinds of taxes to keep terrorists away from airports, wharfs and loading ports.

Also bear in mind the border is big and huge. It is not like Iraq – 300 miles and still cost how much? $1trl. We are talking Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California.

To monitor these areas require the deployment of at least three Army divisions. Land-lobbing around big army divisions cost money. Keeping them stationed in a place or yoyo-ing cost money. Equipments needs to be maintained, and all personnel need to be paid. More so, soldiers who are trained for war need to be trained and differently equipped for border patrol.

Mind you, deploying troops to a border (or the immediate vicinity of one) shared with another country is a definite call up for brawling.

Guess what! I’d rather made good citizens’ out of these kids than send them back to poverty, punishment and abuse. It is far cheaper in the long run.

Think Emma Lazarus, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,”

My point here is Governor Rick Perry should just do what the last two President’s told him to do.  “Stop being an “old Democrat” increase local revenue, decrease your dependency on Federal funding and increase your chances of extra allowance and allocations.