Category Archives: Dale Huls

Public Servants Serving for Life

Public Servants Serving for Life

By Dale Huls

On May 24, 2019, the Pregnancy & Parenting Support Centers of Galveston County held its annual fundraising dinner.  As the President of the Clear Lake Tea Party, myself and several members of our board attended to lend our support to the pro-life movement in our community.  The large crowd was thoroughly captivated by the keynote speaker, ChristyAnne Collins Dickenson, the Executive Director of the crisis pregnancy center.  This was a woman who had been arrested over 80 times and had served a cumulative total of over two years in jail for her street advocacy for the preborn at abortion centers across the country.  She had been sentenced to maximum jail terms and forced to undergo psychiatric evaluations simply for trying to talk women out of killing their unborn children.  Her testimony was moving and powerful.

At the start of our evening, the Master of Ceremonies indicated that all the servers were either elected officials or candidates for public office.  They ranged from county commissioners, district and county clerks, constables, judges, school board members, a State Republican Executive Committeewoman and the Texas National Republican Committeeman.  As I watched these public servants scurrying through the tables serving food and beverages, I finally noticed the small sign on our table which read “Public Servants Serving for Life – Table 26.”  That struck me as especially profound.  Here we had those that we are entrusting our government choosing to give their time and resources towards supporting the pro-life movement by actions and deeds instead of only words.  While it may seem like a small thing, it did my heart good to see our leaders become servants, if only for a few hours.

Yet, this display of service evoked another thought within me.  How different the politicians in Austin were compared to the fine men and women in Texas City that night.  I suspect that “Serving for Life” has a totally different meaning for the Austin brand of politician.  While the public servants in Texas City were serving us Chicken Alfredo, the politicians in Austin are serving us something else!

Slavery is often called “America’s original sin.”  However, growing the pro-life movement in America considers abortion as “America’s greatest sin.”  The right-to-life movement has been winning many victories that incrementally restrict abortion and have started to sway the court of public opinion.  In 2019, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia have all seen “heartbeat legislation” filed in their state legislatures.  The state legislature and Governor of Alabama has directly challenged Roe v. Wade by outlawing virtually all abortions in that state.  Indeed, abortions in America are at a historic low.  While this decline in abortions is reflected across all age groups, the biggest drop is among young girls aged 15 to 19 years old.  Undeniably, the culture in America seems to be swinging to the pro-life arguments.

Unfortunately, the question today is “Who does our Texas Republican legislature serve?”  Do they serve the grassroots who overwhelmingly support pro-life and the severe restriction if not outright banning of abortion?  Do they support the Republican Party of Texas 2018 platform that declares [Principle #2] “The sanctity of innocent human life, created in the image of God, which should be protected from fertilization to natural death.”?  Or do they support shadowed special interests or political consultants advising them to run away from the issue?  Who do our state Republicans serve?

Speaker Bonnen, a supposedly pro-life champion, has seen to it that almost every pro-life bill filed in the Texas legislature has died without a floor vote.  From Representative Tinderholt’s House Bill HB 896 prohibiting abortion and protecting the rights of an unborn child to Representative Cain’s Texas Heartbeat Bill HB 1500 which would empower the tiny beating heart of an unborn child to save its own life, Speaker Bonnen has aborted this legislation before it could ever be voted on the floor.  I can guarantee that all Texas House Republicans save one would say they would have voted for this legislation if only it had come up for a vote.  Welcome to the Texas two-step!  Consequently, all we are left with is SB 22, the No Taxpayer Funding for the Abortion Industry Act as a crumb to be thrown to conservatives.  Apparently, the new Republican House leadership is the same as the old Republican House leadership.

And while much of the fault for failed pro-life legislation lies directly upon Speaker Bonnen’s shoulders, we must not forget the gross inaction on the part of Governor Abbott and Lt. Governor Patrick.  Why did they not fight just as hard for pro-life legislation as they did for making psychiatry part of the Texas education system?  They and their allies used every trick in the book to save their sacred “mental health” bill (SB10) at the cost of $100 million a biennium.  So one doesn’t really have to wonder what was truly more important in their minds – saving the lives of the unborn or throwing millions of dollars at the mental health and pharmaceutical industry.  Actions do speak louder than words.

Finally, we have seen who the public servants in Galveston County serve, we know who the politicians in Austin are not serving, and the next question for the future is who will the conservative base of Texas serve?  Will they continue to support a Republican incumbent political class who offer nothing but words and excuses or will they seek out true public servants who mean what they say and then will actually act on those beliefs and principles?  I guess the answer to that will be found in the 2020 Texas Primary election results.

Dale Huls is a long-time Republican activist and is the President of the Clear Lake Tea Party


Dale Huls – A Grassroots Analysis of 2014 RPT Immigration Plank Options

Dale Huls

Posted by   on June 12, 2014

Fellow Grassroots,

Since the convention there has been a serious effort coming out of SD 7 to mischaracterize the immigration platform plank that was adopted as the less conservative option.  We were challenged to compare the Mark Ramsey option vs the Peter Batura option and decide which was the more conservative.

I have accepted this challenge and developed a white paper analyzing the two options.  While we may still disagree, I believe this provides the tea party and conservative basis as to why approximately 60% of the delegates chose the Batura amendment.

Please read, share and comment regarding this analysis.  I believe the wisdom of the body selected the right course of action.

I apologize in advance for any errors and mistakes that may be in the document.  I only had time to do a first pass without a vetting review.  I can only sit behind a computer so long and am now on my way to the border to stand watch against the tsunami of illegals crossing into Texas.

Dale Huls 
Texas Border Volunteer and Executive Board Member, Clear Lake Tea Party

PDF available for printing:  Whitepaper_-_Analysis_of_2014_RPT_Immigration_Plank_Proposals.pdf

A Grassroots Analysis of 2014 PRT Platform Immigration Plank Proposals


Dale Thomas Huls

Clear Lake Tea Party

2951 Marina Bay Dr. #130-394

League City, Texas  77573


A challenge from SD 7 Republican leaders Valoree Swanson and Mark Ramsey to compare the two main immigration plank options and decide whether the platform committee’s amended (trigger) draft immigration plank was more conservative than the immigration plank eventually adopted by the convention delegates.  This challenge has been accepted and this document is the result of that analysis.

The analysis and conclusions presented in this paper, document the assumptions and bias of the majority conservative grassroots Republicans that removed the Texas Solution from the 2014 RPT Platform Report.

Based on the side-by-side pro and con comparisons in section 2.3 it can be reasonably concluded that the Batura immigration plank (#53) was the more conservative option presented to the delegates at the 2014 RPT Convention in Ft. Worth, Texas.  While both planks offered conservative provisions the Ramsey amended plank (#56) based on the PPARC draft immigration plank was found to be fundamentally flawed in many areas.  Consequently, it can be concluded the RPT immigration plank was truly “perfected” during the convention process.


 1.1.   Purpose

The purpose of this whitepaper is to address the relative conservative merits regarding the immigration plank issue that arose during the 2014 RPT Convention in Ft. Worth, Texas.

1.2.   Background

During the 2012 Republican of Texas convention the legal and illegal immigration planks of the previous RPT Platform was replaced by the Texas Solution, described as a market-based approach to solving illegal immigration issues.  The main feature of the Texas Solution was a guest worker program.  Many grassroots Republicans felt that this approach was a ruse for “cheap labor” and amnesty under guise of a so-called solution.  Furthermore, many believed that the Texas Solution had been adopted through parliamentarian maneuvering under the guidance of senior Party officials.

After two years of waiting, activists across the State gathered at the 2014 RPT Convention in Ft. Worth determined to repeal the Texas Solution and replace it with a common sense immigration plank.  After a contentious debate in the platform committee, a draft immigration plank was offered that replaced the Texas Solution but kept a guest worker program under the new name of a Provisional Visa Program.  During the platform committee’s work, a substitution amendment was offered which removed the guest worker language and lost due to a 15 to 15 tie in committee.  However, a minority report was generated and presented on the convention floor.  After a spirited floor fight on the convention floor, the platform committee’s draft immigration plank was initially amended to include a secure border “trigger” and the minority report was defeated.  Later that day, a substitute amendment which removed the contentious guest worker language that had been the main focus of the previous Texas Solution plank was proposed and adopted.

1.3.   Issue

Although the debate was passionate throughout the convention and the amending process was conducted with fairness by the Chair, the oft-described “perfecting” process of the platform has left many Texans in confusion as to which platform plank was the more conservative plank.  For example, Senate District 7 voted overwhelmingly against the substituted amendment that was eventually adopted.  Mark Ramsey from SD 7 had offered the original “trigger” amendment to the original draft platform committee report which kept a provisional visa program in place with implementation occurring after the border is secured. Once the amendment offered by Peter Batura was adopted and the convention closed, many activists celebrated the removal of the Texas Solution and the guest worker program.

However, the debate continued across social media and emails as to the true ramifications of the immigration plank debate, Republican leaders in SD 7 began to claim that the defeated immigration plank with a trigger amendment was, in fact, the more conservative of the two options debated on the convention floor.  They contended that they were stronger on border security and immigration reform and offered a one page table to back up their claims.  They offered up a challenge to the grassroots supporters of the adopted plank to compare the two planks and decide for themselves.

This whitepaper is the result of responding to this challenge by analyzing each plank on its own merits and then comparing the results to each other.


For the purposes of this analysis, the original immigration plank as proposed by the RPT PPARC and the accompanying Minority Report #2 is not analyzed.  Analysis is limited to the PPARC’s immigration plank as amended (Mark Ramsey offered amendment, Ref. 1) and the final RPT adopted immigration plank (Peter Batura offered amendment, Ref. 2).  The original PPARC plank and Minority Report #2 became irrelevant after being amended in the case of the former and being defeated by the delegates in the case of the latter.

Additionally, the language of the first three paragraphs of each plank version will not be addressed in this analysis since both planks contain the exact same language.

Each plank version will be analyzed separately and then comparatively with respect to the following topics:

  1. Securing the Border
  2. Modernizing Immigration Laws
  3. Guest Worker/Provisional Visa Programs
  4. Miscellaneous Items

2.1.   Analysis of the Amended Draft Platform Committee Immigration Plank Proposed by Mark Ramsey

2.1.1. Securing the Border

The PPARC immigration plank as amended (M. Ramsey) begins its border security language under a discrete set of three bulleted items:

Secure Our Borders First

  • We demand the federal government immediately secure the borders and bring safety and security for all Americans.
  • We demand Congress develop and fund a National Border Security Plan based upon the recommendations of lawmakers in Texas and other border states.
  • Because the federal government has failed to act, we call on the Texas legislature to develop and fund a border and port of entry security plan utilizing state and local law enforcement.

Additional language related to border security is as follows:

In order to deal with the current undocumented population, only after the borders are secured and verified by the States, we urge Congress…

ANALYSIS –   The border security bullet language is adequate in vision and general terminology.  The title of the border security section is a declarative statement heading the emphasizing securing the border first.  The first bullet is a call for the federal government to secure the border.  This bullet links the safety and security of Americans to border enforcement and properly defines border security as a federal issue.  This bullet language is a restatement of the 2012 Texas Solution plank bullet on border security.

The second bullet calls for a National Border Security Plan to be developed by Congress.  While the intent of resolution is commendable, planning and implementation of a border security plan remains in the purview of the Executive Branch per the US Constitution.  Congress does not have the authority to develop an executable plan.  Congress may only pass legislation and fund activities related to border security.  Consequently, this bullet as written requests an unconstitutional action by Congress which would further expand the role of the legislative branch and duplicate the authority of the Executive branch.  However, it will be assumed to be poorly written and the intent was to merely pass legislation regarding the development of a plan.  Finally, while Texas and the other 15 Border States can offer excellent suggestions regarding border security, it is believed that all States are greatly impacted by lax border security and have equal standing in developing a National Border Security Plan.

The final bullet addressing border security recognizes the failure of the federal government to control the border and calls on Texas to develop and fund its own border and port of entry security plan.  While Texas may have sovereign State rights at the border, clearly the US Ports of Entry are entirely within the federal domain and not enforceable by State legislative actions.  Otherwise, this bullet is entirely consistent with the Governor and Lt. Governor, as well as, the Republican candidates for both offices.  The Department of Public Safety has already drawn up plans to control the border once sufficient funding is available.

Additional language inserted into the Provisional Visa Program text again emphasizes a State verified secure border before the legalization of the approximately 11 million illegal aliens currently residing in the United States.

Overall, the border security language in this plank is better than the previous 2012 Texas Solution plank.  It offered a National Border Security Plan by Congress (although not constitutional as written) and called for a Texas law enforcement solution to control the border.  And finally, it does appear to emphasis securing the border first before the implementation of a mass legalization program for illegal aliens residing in the country.

2.1.2. Modernizing Immigration Laws

The PPARC immigration plank as amended (M. Ramsey) begins its immigration reform language under the heading “Modernize the Immigration Laws” and supported the following five bulleted items:

Modernize the Immigration Laws

  • We support the improvement of our 1936 Social Security card to use anti-counterfeit technology.
  • We support replacement of current employment visa system with an efficient, cost effective system that responds to actual and persistent labor shortages and family re-unification.
  • We support the reallocation of immigration slots balanced to meet labor shortages.
  • We support ending country of origin quotas.
  • We support ending the annual green card lottery.

ANALYSIS – The first bullet addressing immigration reform advocates a technological update for the Social Security card system which would produce a counterfeit resistant card.  Historically, the US Social Security card has never been used or accepted as a form of identification.  It is the number itself that has value and once provided to an employer or applicable government agency can be checked against a government database.  The call for an updated SS card in an immigration plank can reasonably be construed as the premise for a national identification card.  This item was also in the 2012 Texas Solution plank but unlike the 2012 version, the statement declaring that this will not be used as a national ID for US citizens was dropped in the 2014 version.  While updating Social Security cards is not a problem for conservatives, a national ID card is.

The second bullet does not truly address immigration reform but focuses on the current guest worker program in terms of efficiencies, cost effectiveness and responding to actual and persistent labor shortages.  It is assumed that this item is related to the high skilled labor visa program used to fill critical labor shortages.  This is the first discrete item referencing a guest worker program.  This item is not supported in the first three paragraphs of this plank with an applicable rationale.

The third bullet also addresses guest workers by promoting a market-based approach to reallocating immigration slots to meet labor shortages.  This bullet also supports “chain migration” by mentioning “family re-unification as a Republican goal.

The fourth and fifth bullets are true immigration reform items that call for ending country of origin quotas and ending the annual green card lottery.  Conservatives believe that you should be accepted into this country based on merit and individual circumstance rather than being limited to a home country’s quota.  America should not welcome its legal immigrants based on a game of chance.

Ultimately, this section of the plank does address true immigration reform in the fourth and fifth bullets but lays a pretext under the guise of immigration reform for a national ID card (1st bullet), a guest worker program (2nd & 3rd bullet) and chain migration (3rd bullet).  Overall, these provisions are not conservative positions.

2.1.3. Guest Worker/Provisional Visa Programs

The PPARC immigration plank as amended (M. Ramsey) its guest worker section under a new heading called the “Provisional Visa Program” and supported by the following five bulleted items:

Provisional Visa Program – In order to deal with the current undocumented population, only after the borders are secured and verified by the States, we urge Congress to establish a new provisional visa with a term of five (5) years that does not provide amnesty, does not cause mass deportation, and does not provide a pathway to citizenship but does not preclude existing pathways.

  • An eligibility criterion should consider criminal history, completion of penalties and fines for immigration violations and payment of current and back taxes.
  • Participants must be responsible for their own and families private health insurance.
  • Participants must waive any and all rights to apply for financial assistance from public entitlement programs.
  • Participants must show a proficiency in the English Language.
  • We urge Congress and the state legislature to strengthen enforcement and penalties on employers that do not comply with labor and employment laws to ensure an equitable labor market.  There will be no penalties to those employers that comply with effective employment verification systems.”

ANALYSIS – Prior to the bulleted items, the introductory paragraph definitively calls for the establishment of a provisional visa program (aka guest worker program).  In this plank, Republicans have adopted the language of the Democrats in using terminology such as “undocumented population” rather than the correct term of “illegal aliens.”  This is a normalization step needed to peddle legalization of non-citizens.  A so-called “trigger” was added to satisfy the secure the border first crowd and still keep a guest worker program.  This amendment was an improvement to the original PPARC language.  It calls for verification of a secure border by the States (assume Border States) as a trigger for Congress to establish a provisional visa program.  This provision also mandates a 5-year guest worker program without any specifics such as is a one-time only visa or is it a renewable provisional visa?  Will a guest worker have to return to his or her country of origin to renew their visa? Will they be allowed to bring their families and if they have children will they be American citizens?  Who will police such a program when it has been demonstrated that the federal government cannot even track foreigners in the United States here on student visas?  What would be the penalties if a guest worker loses his/her visa due to loss of job, expiration of visa, or criminal activity?  None of these questions are answered or even addressed.  The guest worker provision language goes even further in declaring that the provisional visa program would not provide amnesty.  How is that possible?  With no provision requiring the illegal alien to leave the United States in order to sign up for the new visa program, it is concluded that legalization of status while remaining in situ is indeed amnesty.  A nominal fee or penalty as a way to buy a spot to the front of the line does not negate the basic fact that if you sneak into this country, you can stay provided you purchase a visa.  That is an open borders process.  The provision does state that this legalization process should not lead to a path for citizenship but other citizenship pathways would be open.  Will the provisional visa be the equivalent of a “green card” that legal immigrants use awaiting citizenship?   It is believed that a new Republican sponsored Provisional Visa Program has too many questions and could be used for a variety abuses to the foreign workers by unscrupulous intermediaries and corrupt businesses.  The federal government will demonstrably seek to expand a provisional visa program that will collapse under its own incompetence or create a new normal by which anyone (terrorist, criminal, coyote, multinational gang member, human trafficker, or victim) can gain entry to the United States under a provisional guest worker visa program.

The first bulleted item under the new Provisional Visa Program calls for eligibility criterion that includes criminal history, payment of penalties and fines, and payment of current and back taxes.  How is this supposed to happen?  Doing criminal background checks in this country may be barely possible.  Background checks in foreign countries will be impossible.  If illegal aliens have been living under the radar due to their illegal status, how will the authorities determine what taxes are owed?  It is concluded that this item has been put in to give the appearance of legitimizing the illegal alien population that would come under a guest worker program.

The 2nd and 3rd bullets are intended to show that a guest worker would not be a burden to the American taxpayer.  A voluntary disavowal of benefits will never stand up in today’s courts.  Once a person is in the United States, they become eligible for all kinds of benefits and entitlements.  The Supreme Court has already ruled that States cannot deny illegal aliens a public education or medical care.  They get in-state tuition rates in our universities.  They are allowed tax credits and welfare.  It is not believed that these items could be enforced or stand-up to a court challenge given the contemporary rulings from the federal courts on these issues.  Again, it is concluded that these bulleted items were included in the plank to assuage conservative critics of a guest worker program regarding the taxpayer burden of the sudden legalization of 11 million illegal aliens.

2.1.4. Miscellaneous Items

The PPARC immigration plank as amended (M. Ramsey) retains an additional two provisions:

Oppose Amnesty – We oppose any form of amnesty to include any granting of legal status to persons in the country illegally.”

“Oppose Mass Deportation – We oppose any form] of mass deportation.”

ANALYSIS – It was assumed that these two items were set apart in the same manner as “Secure Our Borders First,” “Modernize the Immigration Laws,” and “Provisional Visa Program” to emphasize the importance of these issues.  However, these two items are diametrically opposed to each other.  Either one or the other can be true but not both of them.  You cannot oppose the granting of legal status to illegal aliens and then be opposed to the mass deportation of such aliens.  If the logic trail is followed from the other side, you also cannot allow millions of illegal aliens to remain in the United States and not grant legal status to that population.  Since both statements cannot be true, it is determined that these statements were placed in the plank simply to mollify those on the right who demand “no amnesty” and those on the left who decry conservatives for promoting “mass deportation” and destroying families.  In conclusion, given the context of the overall plank it can be deduced that the purpose of the plank is to provide legal status to persons illegally in the country (Provisional Visa Program) and therefore a form of amnesty while opposing mass deportations of the same.  The “Oppose Amnesty” provision is a false statement.

2.2.   Analysis of the Adopted Immigration Plank Offered by Peter Batura

2.2.1. Securing the Border

The adopted immigration plank as substituted (P. Batura) provides for border security language as follows:

  • Secure the borders through
    • Increasing the number of border security officers
    • Increasing joint operations and training with local law enforcement, DPS and the Texas State Guard
    • Contiguous physical barrier coupled with electronic, infrared and visual monitoring”

ANALYSIS – The statements regarding border security are simple and discrete.  Border security is discussed in real terms by increasing resources (more border security officers), more integrated operations and training, and a physical barrier (assume a fence) to deter illegal aliens from crossing the border and detect attempts when they occur.

However, this provision does not set a time frame address the immediacy of the problem or offer a prioritization with respect to other actions (e.g., secure the border first).  Furthermore, it does not address private property issues in constructing such a barrier.

With the level of specificity and the immediacy of the problem apparent on the news every day, it can be determined that the plank adequately addresses the border security issue.

2.2.2. Modernizing Immigration Laws

The adopted immigration plank contains language addressing the modernization of immigration laws as follows:

  • Modernizing Current immigration Laws to address the following:
    • Any form of Amnesty should not be granted, including the granting of legal status to persons in the country illegally
    • We support replacement of the current employment visa system with an efficient cost effective system
    • We support ending country of origin quotas
    • We support ending the annual green card lottery”

ANALYSIS – The 1st bullet addressing immigration laws is a declarative statement forbidding the granting of amnesty to illegal aliens.  There are no other statements in the plank that contradict opposing granting legal status to illegal aliens in the United States.

The second bullet does not truly address immigration reform but focuses on the current guest worker program in terms of efficiencies, cost effectiveness and responding to actual and persistent labor shortages.  It is assumed that this item is related to the high skilled labor visa program used to fill critical labor shortages.  This is the first discrete item referencing a guest worker program.  This item is not supported in the first three paragraphs of this plank with an applicable rationale.

The third and fourth bullets are true immigration reform items that call for ending country of origin quotas and ending the annual green card lottery.  Conservatives believe that you should be accepted into this country based on merit and individual circumstance rather than being limited to a home country’s quota.  America should not welcome its legal immigrants based on a game of chance.

Ultimately, this section of the plank does address true immigration reform in the third and fourth bullets and sets a marker for “no amnesty” with any subsequent immigration reform.

2.2.3. Guest Worker/Provisional Visa Programs

The adopted immigration plank does contain language referencing a guest worker program as follows:

In addition, with 92 million Americans not working, the labor force at 36-year low and a lethargic economy, the United States of America can ill-afford a guest worker program designed to depress wages.


  • Once the borders are verifiably secure, and E-verify system use is fully enforced, creation of a visa classification for non-specialty industries which have demonstrated actual and persistent labor shortages”

ANALYSIS – The fourth paragraph in the adopted plank definitively states that America cannot afford a guest worker program to provide corporate interests a legal source of cheap labor.

However, the bulleted item does speak to a new visa classification and recognizes the fact that there are issues within the unskilled labor workforce.  It is unclear whether this is to be part of the existing current employment visa program or if a new program needs to be developed.

Certainly, this immigration plank greatly deemphasizes the guest worker provisions in the 2012 Texas Solution.  It is clear that a “market-based solution” to immigration is not an approach the Republican Party of Texas endorses.  Additionally, this language does indicate that the new unskilled worker classification should not be developed until the border is verifiably secure.  Yet, it leaves open the question regarding who is responsible for verification – States of the federal government.

Ultimately, it is determined that the adopted plank does not support a new “market-based” guest worker approach to the illegal alien problem in America.

2.2.4. Miscellaneous Items

The adopted immigration plank also included the following provisions:

  • Ending In-State Tuition for illegal immigrants
  • Enhancing State smuggling laws
  • Prohibiting Sanctuary cities
  • Prohibiting the knowing employment of illegal immigrants
  • Providing civil liability protections for landowners against illegal immigrants
  • Protecting the ability of law enforcement to inquire of the status of someone in custody”

ANALYSIS – The above bullets are a laundry list of items aimed at ending the magnets for illegal aliens (in-State tuition, sanctuary cities, and employment), enhanced enforcement (smuggling laws, status inquiries) and protecting ranchers and property owners from illegal alien activities.  These items represent a conservative viewpoint regarding the immigration issues they represent.  There are no contradictory statements.

 2.3.   Comparative Analysis of the Amended and Substituted Immigration Planks

 2.3.1. Securing the Border

The following table represents the pros and cons regarding each amendment’s relative merits on securing the border.

Ramsey Amendment (#56) Batura Amendment (#53)


Emphasizes border security first

Increase border security officers

State verification of border security

Joint ops and training integration with BP, DPS, and State Guard

National Border Security Plan

Contiguous physical barrier

Calls for Texas law enforcement border solution


Calls for Texas control of US Ports of Entry

No timeline (secure the border first)

No stated priority except with reference to a guest worker classification visa

In the pro/con side-by-side analysis of the border security issue, it is evident that two different approaches were taken with respect to securing the border.  The Ramsey amendment focused on the immediacy of the problem, provided a prioritization, and called for formal plans to control the border.  The Batura amendment provided specific strategies to control the border.  Under the issue of securing the order, it can be reasonably concluded that either amendment would be adequate and neither amendment can be considered the more conservative.

2.3.2. Modernizing Immigration Laws

The following table represents the pros and cons regarding each amendment’s relative merits on modernizing immigration laws.

Ramsey Amendment (#56) Batura Amendment (#53)


End country of origin quotas

End country of origin quotas

End green card lotteries

End green card lotteries

No amnesty/legal status for illegal aliens in country


Basis for a National ID card (updated SS Card)

Calls for chain migration

In the pro/con side-by-side analysis of the modernizing immigration laws issue, there were some pros that each plank promoted (origin quotas and green card lotteries).  However, the Ramsey amendment had some serious flaws which could reasonably construe as a basis for a National ID Card and a call for chain migration.  Neither of these positions are conservative positions.  On the other hand, the Batura amendment explicitly rejected granting amnesty/legal status to illegal aliens as a “modernization” of immigration laws.  While the Ramsey amendment does have a line item that rejects amnesty (see further discussion in section 2.3.4) it cannot be listed as a pro in this section.  Furthermore, the listed cons in the Ramsey amendment are so egregious that the the Batura   amendment can only be considered the more conservative alternative.

2.3.3. Guest Worker/Provisional Visa Programs

The following table represents the pros and cons regarding each amendment’s relative merits on a guest worker/provisional visa program.

Ramsey Amendment (#56) Batura Amendment (#53)


Recognizes there maybe issues with America’s unskilled labor work force

States America cannot afford a cheap labor guest worker program

Requires a verifiable secure border by the States

Recognizes there maybe issues with America’s unskilled labor work force

Requires a verifiable secure border

Deemphasizes guest worker program as a solution to illegal immigration


Emphasizes provisional visa program as a solution to illegal immigration

Uses terminology of the left (undocumented population)

Lack of clarity regarding the parameters of the 5-yr guest worker plan

Allows illegal aliens to “buy” a place at the front of the line for residency in the US

Unworkable restrictions on healthcare, benefits and entitlements

In regards to the comparative analysis between the two planks, the evaluator recognizes the fact that those who think a guest worker program is necessary will not agree with those who don’t.  The offered analysis in this document is from the perspective that a guest worker program is not necessary or desirable at this time.  With that said, the Batura amendment is clearly the more conservative.

2.3.4. Miscellaneous Items

The following table represents the pros and cons regarding each amendment’s relative merits on planks miscellaneous items.

Ramsey Amendment (#56) Batura Amendment (#53)


Oppose Amnesty

Ending In-State tuition

Oppose Mass Deportations

Enhancing smuggling laws

Prohibit sanctuary cities

Prohibit known illegal alien employment

Civil liability protections

Law enforcement status inquiries


Oppose Amnesty and Oppose Mass Deportations cannot both be true

In the pro/con side-by-side analysis of miscellaneous plank issues, clearly show that the Batura amendment contains many accepted conservative provisions.  The two miscellaneous provisions in the Ramsey amendment were found to be mutually exclusive.  Consequently, the Batura plank was determined to be the more strongly conservative plank with respect to miscellaneous provisions.


 Based on the side-by-side pro and con comparisons in section 2.3 it can be reasonably concluded that the Batura immigration plank (#53) was the more conservative option presented to the delegates at the 2014 RPT Convention in Ft. Worth, Texas.  While both planks offered conservative provisions the Ramsey amended plank (#56) based on the PPARC draft immigration plank was found to be fundamentally flawed in many areas.  Consequently, it can be concluded the RPT immigration plank was truly “perfected” during the convention process.


  1. Filed Amendment #56 to amend the Immigration Plank on page 39 of the 2014 Republican Party of Texas Report of Permanent Platform Committee, dated June 7 2014.
  2. Filed Amendment #53 to substitute the Immigration Plank on page 39 of the 2014 Republican Party of Texas Report of Permanent Platform Committee, dated June 7 2014.

PDF available for printing:  Whitepaper_-_Analysis_of_2014_RPT_Immigration_Plank_Proposals.pdf

Update: Dale Huls on “United Texans TEA Party” mailer

UPDATE: United Texans Tea Party Mailer May 19, 2014 11:07pm

From Dale Huls:
“Folks, in the interest of truth and transparency, I wish to provide an update to my earlier email regarding the mailer that has caused such a controversy over the last couple of days. Due to the diligence of one of my tea party friends, she uncovered an issue in my earlier statement regarding the involvement of the Tea Party Express and the TeaParty.Net in the funding of this mailer as stated earlier.

When I was contacted about the mailer, one of the first things I asked was “who is funding this?” In a subsequent phone call, I was told that the Tea Party Express and TeaParty.Net were involved in this effort which I reported in today’s email. However, my friend (who is a Patrick supporter) dug deeper and contacted both groups to verify my earlier claims. What she found out was that they claimed to have no knowledge or involvement regarding the flyer in question. Furthermore, she sent me statements from both organizations verifying their non involvement (see below). My friend gave me time to contact the person who originally approached me to get their side of the story. As it turns out, it was claimed that when I asked who was behind this flyer that he was still talking about organizations that could be involved. Misunderstanding or miscommunication – I don’t know.

So now I know that no national tea party organizations were involved, I asked the question again, “who is funding this mailer?” At this point I was told that unnamed donors were responsible for the funding and he would not reveal their names. So was it the Koch brothers, Karl Rove, George Soros, or the Easter Bunny…who the hell knows because I surely don’t. That is the truth.

I thought I had checked this out beforehand. I Googled the dude and found that he had a Tea Party Express affiliation and just assumed this was legit. For this I apologize. If I had been told that unnamed donors were behind this, Mary and I never would have assisted with the flyer by giving it a Texas return address.

Finally, while the origins of the mailer may be sketchy, I still endorse the slate of candidates it represents. I have no knowledge, proof, or suspicion that any of the four candidate’s campaigns was involved in the manufacture and mailing of this flyer. Do not make any unfounded assumptions…just look at me when I made an assumption.

Again I want to thank my friend for sharing this information with me and allowing me to tell you the truth myself. As a Patrick supporter, she could have certainly ambushed me and attacked my integrity and truthfulness. I don’t lie. Whether you agree with me or not, I tell the truth as I know it. When I make a mistake it is an honest one. I hope my friend understands how much I value her faith in me.

The following are the statements from two tea party organizations regarding this issue:
It has been incorrectly stated that TheTeaParty.Net was part of a group of organizations involved with funding a recent Texas mailer under the banner of “The United Texas Tea Party.” TheTeaParty.Net had nothing to do with this mailer in any regard. We ask that anyone who has spread this misinformation to send communications correcting the record.

Todd Cefaratti, Founder & President,

“[This person] is a fundraising consultant that does help us from time to time. He called around to Tea Party groups to see whether there was support for this, but didn’t find enough support.

So we told him that we were not interested after checking around with Tea Party people in Texas, we found that there was mostly support for Patrick over Dewhurst and even some division in the Christian race… we decided to decline it.”

Sal Russo
Founder, Tea Party Express

Dale Huls”

“To all concerned,

Recently I was contacted about the possibility of the Clear Lake Tea Party sponsoring a mailer regarding four statewide races of whose candidates we endorsed. I was told that their was a potential 700,000 Statewide distribution list that we could reach out to for our endorsed candidates.

This flyer was funded primarily by the following national groups: Vision for America, Tea Party Express and Tea Party.Net. They were looking to give a Texas flavor since several Texas tea parties had endorsed this slate and asked the CLTP to sponsor this at no cost to the CLTP. Ultimately, the CLTP Board decided to not sign on to the mailer as they objected to language of describing the four candidates as “Tea Party Champions”. Although we endorsed these candidates as the best opportunity to further tea party goals and objectives for the next four years, Wayne Christen is the only candidate that has actually got down in the trenches with the tea party and can be considered a legitimate “Tea Party Champion”.

Therefore, the mailer was sent out under the name of “United Texans Tea Party” as an umbrella group specifically formed to manage the mailer and give voice to those tea parties and tea party activists that are supporting these candidates. Mary and I were asked to supply a return address on the mailer and we decided to let them use Mary’s old campaign P.O. Box address.

I know that many Tea Party opponents of Lt. Gov. Dewhurst and erstwhile supporters of Dan Patrick are calling this mailer a “dirty trick” and are claiming that the Lt. Gov campaign team has sent this flyer out. They are simply assuming this to be the case without any evidence or facts to back up their assumptions. I did not have any discussions with the campaign’s of any of these candidates but only with a representative of the Tea Party Express regarding this flyer.

I personally do not have a problem with national tea party groups helping out those local Texas tea parties who have made choices for which there is agreement. If Senator Cruz had not received out of State help in his successful run for Senate he may have not prevailed at all. Now, I believe that David Dewhurst was not elected to the Senate so that he could learn from his experience and continue to serve Texas as Lt. Gov. Consequently, if I do not condem Senator Cruz for receiving out of State help, how can I condem the Lt. Gov. I do not understand the hysteria from other Texas Tea Party organizations regarding legitimate tea party support for the Lt. Governor. In our opinion, Dan Patrick is not a tea party “savior” and we have made our own thoughtful choice in this matter. It would be the height of hubris to assume that all tea parties in Texas are of a single mind when it comes to the endorsement of candidates. In many tea parties opinion, Debra Medina was a hands down favorite of the tea party, yet, some tea parties threw their support to Glen Hegar for TX Comptroller. And in the last Senate race with Cornyn, some tea parties chose Stovall and others chose Stockman.

We do not seek a savior, we make our own best choices. Yet, we are ever mindful of the higher principles and values that do unite all tea parties in Texas. While we seek solutions to the ills and problems that challenge our beloved State, please allow us the independence and freedom of choice to act in those ways we think is best for our State. I hope that the tea parties of Texas do not start to enforce their own brand of “political correctness” and “orthodoxy” in the liberty movement of Texas.

Be at peace and support your candidate as best you can. Let’s not turn differences in candidate choices into a blood sport. In the long run, no matter who is elected, the Texas tea parties must continue to work together to make Texas strong.

Dale Huls”


Vote for Tanya Robertson and Dale Huls for SD11 SREC Committeewoman and Committeeman!

Dale and Tanya SREC

Vote for Dale Huls for SD11 SREC Committeechairman!!!

Dale Huls SREC SD11Dale

“Tea Parties Need to Take a Second Look at Lt. Gov. Dewhurst”

dale huls

“Here we are just days away from the 2014 Republican Primary Run-off Elections. Patrick or Dewhurst…Dewhurst or Patrick, is there a clear and simple choice for the Texas Tea Party movement? Is there one candidate that the tea party can trust to advance our agenda of personal freedom, economic freedom and a debt-free future for our children and grandchildren? Who knows? Ultimately, it’s a crap-shoot…or is it? Let’s look a little deeper now that we only have two choices left for the Republican Lt. Governor candidate.

To be fair, I have supported Lt. Gov. Dewhurst for re-election since the four challengers (Dewhurst, Patrick, Patterson, and Staples) announced their candidacies. This surprised many of my friends in the tea party movement. They looked at me like I had two heads (and both of them crazy). How could I support Dewhurst! Look at what he did to Ted Cruz during the US Senate campaign! He’s the establishment in Austin that we are fighting against! Talk about hard to defend your pick, it didn’t get any harder than this.

Indeed, even before the campaign season started…for most tea parties…David Dewhurst was not an option. Opinions were already set. An unspoken “anybody but Dewhurst” approach was pursued by everyone driven by their revulsion of the previous “scorched earth” tactics used against Ted Cruz and the continuing overspending and increases in the Texas State budget. Indeed, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst had become radioactive to the vast majority of tea parties in Texas. It seemed that everyone, including my own tea party, was searching for reasons to support one of the other remaining candidates. And for the most part, they found one reason or another to throw their support to one of the other three. The Clear Lake Tea Party endorsed Todd Staples by an overwhelming majority. It was a cold and lonely place on the CLTP Board standing up for Dewhurst and my arguments fell on deaf ears.

Yet, in the months before that vote to endorse Staples. Like many others, I was also looking for that “white knight” tea party candidate who would champion our principles and causes. However, Ted Cruz and Louie Gohmert already had jobs. So I sat down and did my own analysis of the Republican candidates with their names in the hat.

Ordinarily, Patrick should be a shoo-in for tea party support. He truly does have one of the more conservative voting records in the Texas Senate. He did form the Texas Legislative Tea Party Caucus during the 82nd legislative session. Additionally, he assembled a Texas Tea Party Caucus Advisory Committee composed of many leading tea party activists in the State to advise the caucus. So why was this not a slam dunk for Senator Patrick? Patrick claims that new “authentic conservative” leadership is needed in the Lt. Governor’s office. Maybe the problem seems to be with the word “authentic.” The sense of many in the tea party was that they were being “played.” Several Tea Party Caucus Advisory Committee members have said that the Texas Tea Party Caucus has been ineffective in setting tea party supported policies and championing them in the legislature. Although Patrick often casts conservative votes on many issues (such as his voting against the State budget this session), his votes are never a deciding vote. Patrick also has a reputation as a “bully” and an “ideologue,” which was visibly demonstrated when he stormed the House floor to confront Rep. Steve Toth over his CSCOPE oversight bill which Patrick promised to scuttle in a backroom deal with the CSCOPE administrators. This particular instance gave some in the tea party a deep glimpse into his character. Some of us still remember, Dan Patrick’s ambush interview of Ted Cruz on his radio show that upset the grassroots state-wide. With his election year revelation regarding Lt. Gov. Dewhurst’s leadership abilities, the tea party grassroots should remain unconvinced of Senator Patrick’s motivations and ultimate goals. Ultimately, I decided that Dan Patrick was no “tea party champion.”

So if not Dan Patrick, what other choice is left? It was not enough to only vote against someone. I needed to vote for someone in this election, so I gave David Dewhurst another look. I found that the original disagreements over spending and the State budget with Dewhurst still remain. I am still against the water amendment (No. 6) passed in November that was supported by the Lt. Governor. However, as I looked at the overall performance of Texas during the national financial crisis starting last decade and the hardships and anti-prosperity policies of the Obama regime, I began to evaluate things in a different light.

The tea parties are looked at as the L’Enfant Terrible of the Republican Party. We are conservatives who are terrifyingly candid by saying embarrassing things to and about the Republican Establishment. We are also portrayed as uncompromising and naive with respect to politics. While it may be true about us saying candid things that embarrass the establishment, we are growing up and maturing.

Getting past the Senate race campaign, the State budget, and a revolving-fund water amendment, I began to focus on the whole Dewhurst record. I discovered that he has be responsible for increasing the DPS budget by $800 Million to build the infrastructure necessary for Texas to be able to close its own borders for the first time. That after Patrick’s Sonogram Bill stalled in the Senate that Dewhurst personally pushed through the bill’s passage in the Senate. That under Dewhurst, as Lt. Governor, Texas has had lawsuit reform, election reform, stopped the State from adopting Medicare expansion, rejected Common Core, and greatly expanded our internal energy sources. With these in mind, I looked at other States and how they are faring with respect to Texas. Texas leads the nation in job growth. One third of all jobs created in America are in Texas. Approximately, 1200 people a day from other States come to Texas. If Texas has been so bad under the watch of Lt. Governor Dewhurst, then why are we in such great shape compared to the rest of the country?

After I looked at the Lt. Governor’s entire record, I next looked at the man. Who was this guy who ran such a cutthroat campaign against Ted Cruz who I actively supported during the campaign? Who was this politician that from the CLTP perspective seemed hardly to recognize that there was a Texas tea party movement? My questions were answered as I worked with the Dewhurst campaign team last year when they reached out to grassroots around Texas. I and other activists were brutally honest with our advice to the Dewhurst campaign. Sometimes our suggestions and input were taken and acted upon, sometimes not. However, they kept coming back and asking. That is all we in the tea party are asking for. A chance to be heard! We know that we won’t get everything we ask for, but that is all right. As long as you are listening and making valued, principled judgments, I am okay with being on the losing side of things from time to time. Just ask my CLTP Board!

And then, I finally got to interact with David Dewhurst directly. From the time I spent with him in person and on the phone, I gathered my own sense of the man and who I thought he was. I got a feeling of “authenticity,” “integrity,” and “sincerity” from the Lt. Governor. He seemed earnest that I understand his positions and rationale, yet was never condescending or dismissive over my concerns and issues. Sometimes we would agree to disagree and others I could see enlightenment enter his eyes regarding concepts and concerns he had previously not thought of. For the first time my personal assessment agreed with my political assessment, that I was indeed backing the right horse in this race.

Like I said before, backing Dewhurst was a lonely place in the tea party. However, after the primary and the field now down to just two candidates, the CLTP was trying to figure out what its next steps would be regarding the run-off. The Patrick team contacted Robert Gonzalez, then President of the CLTP, to set up a meeting to “bury the hatchet” regarding our opposition to his candidacy for Lt. Governor. We agreed, and in good conscience, Robert decided it was only fair to give Dewhurst a similar opportunity to address our tea party board. Dewhurst accepted our invitation and on a Friday at the First Baptist Church of Seabrook, the Lt. Governor sat with the CLTP Executive Board. Sitting down, the CLTP Board was very anti-Dewhurst for all the reasons previously stated. My fellow board members began questioning with a vengeance and hitting on topics like education, the TSA anti-groping bill that failed, the Wendy Davis filibuster, budget issues, border security, open carry, Obamacare, tort reform, local elections and debt reform to name just a few. Dewhurst spent three and a half hours with us answering questions, giving background information, and discussing problems and solutions. After our meeting, my fellow board members seemed rather stunned at the way things had turned out. I was asked “was that for real” to which I replied “that is the David Dewhurst I have been working with for months, you are just seeing this for the first time.” In fact, one of my friends on the board commented that “if this is for real, I owe you an apology.” No apology needed. I understood their mindset intimately because it was once my own.

After a week of reflection and debate, the Clear Lake Tea Party Executive Board announced their endorsement and support of Lt. Governor David Dewhurst for re-election as Texas Lt. Governor. To those who read these words, take note that it is a rare thing that so many strong and opinionated people can re-evaluate their positions, change their minds and publicly reverse their stance.

But this is not the end of this story. If it was just the CLTP Board who reconsidered their opinion of David Dewhurst and ended up supporting him, it could be looked at as an atypical outcome in a turbulent political season. But the story doesn’t just end there. Immediately upon the announcement that the Clear Lake Tea Party had formally endorsed Dewhurst for Lt. Governor, all the leadership of the surrounding area tea parties began to question the wisdom and sanity of backing the Dewhurst. In order to answer this question, the CLTP organized another meeting with Dewhurst and the leadership of six area tea parties all mainly hostile to the Lt. Governor last week.

Folks, lightning struck twice. After the meeting, what were once critics of David Dewhurst came out with a new understanding and perspective of the man and his efforts for Texas. Within a day, two tea parties that were represented by their boards immediately endorsed David Dewhurst for Lt. Governor and representatives of the others went back to advocate an endorsement from their respective boards. Their decisions are pending. What all this demonstrates is that if the tea parties of Texas temper their initial opposition and take a hard long second look at both candidates, they just might come to a different conclusion regarding the candidates.

Finally, do a grassroots activist’s due diligence by throwing out conventional wisdom and judge the situation on the entirety of the facts present. Get your facts first-hand by doing your own research, picking up the phone or setting up a meeting. Oh, by the way, how did the CLTP meeting with Dan Patrick go you may ask? After several canceled meetings by the Patrick team, we were never able to get him to sit down with our board. Who knows, what would have happened if he had thought it important to keep his appointments with the Clear Lake Tea Party.

Dale Huls is a founding member of the Clear Lake Tea Party. ”