Back Home Button
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Excellence in Broadcasting
RSS Icon


Newt Says Let Illegals Stay, Drawing Raves from CNN Liberals for Having a Heart


RUSH: Another good debate last night. Every one of these candidates last night, even Huntsman, was on top of their game. There were no major gaffes. There were no flub-ups. I'll tell you, I was jazzed watching this thing. We'll have some specific comments about particular candidates as the program unfolds before your very eyes and ears. One of the things -- I knew this was gonna happen, you probably did, too, when you were watching it. When Newt out of the blue announced his new immigration policy, now that's the focus of a lot of people's attention. "Newt Gingrich May Now Have a Rick Perry Problem," is the Politico headline, because he -- well, here's the thing about it. Newt's position on illegal aliens, it was a little odd, and I'll tell you why.

It came outta nowhere. He had not built a foundation for it. This was the first that we had heard of it last night, and that's not how major policy positions are adopted. Now, basically, what Newt said was that somebody that's been here 20, 25 years, not a citizen, they're illegal for 20, 25 years, they've had kids, family here, they're rooted, they're involved, they're participating here in the American system, and just to uproot them, he said, (paraphrasing) "No American's gonna want to send somebody home that's been here 25 years. It's not what we're gonna do. No American's really gonna be in favor of that."

Now, I understand what he's saying about somebody here with roots and family and all that, been here for a long period of time. But how exactly would this work? What if somebody's been here not 25 years but 22? What if somebody's been here 20, 17? Pick a number less than 25 but longer than five. What's the cutoff here? He said 25 years. What if it's 14? What if it's 13? What if they don't have a family but they have been hardworking and tax paying for 24 years? Just because somebody is here 25 years does not mean that they have assimilated into our society. It doesn't necessarily mean that. They could be rabble-rousing for La Raza out there for 24 of the 25 years. Do they have to speak English, for example? What is the test here to determine that they have assimilated into our distinct American culture?

This is a bold proposal. There's no question. But it was snuck in there, a bold proposal that trickled into the debate. Now, this is just me. You might disagree with me, I doubt it, few of you ever do, but you might disagree with me here. If you want something like this be accepted by the public, I don't think that you just throw it out there. You have to take some time and build a rational case around it and do so over time, build support for it. As I said: beginning, you build a foundation for it. You don't just come up with idea after idea and throw your ideas out as policy. There's a big difference in having an idea and having the idea become official policy.

This is what got Newt in trouble with the individual mandate. Out of the blue, "Oh, yeah, I think everybody ought to be forced to have skin in the game." He probably hasn't even thought about it, just off the top of his head, bammo, but it assumed it was official Newt policy. The same thing with global warming on the couch with Pelosi. Whatever the calculation was, it was of the moment. We're talking about immigration. The fact is -- and we've been over this countless times -- you must first and foremost secure the border. Any non-enforcement approach is going to be a magnet. So, how would Newt do that? By the way, I don't want anybody to misunderstand here. I'm just having an off the top of my head reaction to this. As I say, I understand what Newt's saying. I understand the thinking that goes into this. I'm simply talking about if you really believe this, if you want this to be policy, throwing it out there like this, it's turning itself into a big, big target now.

Everybody is just taking potshots at it, and there's a way to avoid that, if you want to actually have this become something of yours that is policy. I just think you have to build popular support to secure the border first. That's the first thing that has to happen. Before we start talking about deportation or what to do with the people that are here and however long they've been here, we've got to secure the border. That remains the sieve. That remains the ongoing problem, national security problem, immigration problem. And so securing the border also means dealing with the pro-illegal alien lobby, and they're big out there. A bunch of people who are pro-illegal alien who don't want to secure the border.

So this has now become something that people are shooting at Newt at, which stands to reason, and I'm not criticizing anybody shooting at him for it. He's put it out there, and he's done it in a debate, first time anybody's ever of heard of it now as a policy statement rather than idea. If Newt had said, "I have been thinking about this. One of the things I'm thinking about is," and then mention this, "we have to think about it a little further," it would be reacted to in an entirely different way last night and today. But the way he threw it out there, as full-fledged policy, okay, that means we can shoot at it. (interruption) Well, yeah, he is. I think he's ready to take the heat for it.

Now, interestingly, about a month ago or so we touted on this program a column written by Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal about Romney. His piece basically was this race is nowhere near decided, it's nowhere near over. And Romney, according to Daniel Henninger, is obviously going to have to be pushed to the right. He's not gonna get there on his own, and that's the value of the debates and that's the value of the campaign and the primaries. A lot of people fear that Romney's just the establishment candidate, you know, McCain of 2012, gotta be pushed to the right. You watch the debates and you see that it's happening. Romney's being pushed to the right, Henninger was right about this.

But we have found here, ladies and gentlemen, via YouTube -- this might surprise some of you -- Mitt Romney back in 2007, he was on Meet the Press, 2007. "My own view is consistent with what you saw in the Lowell Sun" -- the newspaper -- "that those people who have come here illegally and are in the country, the 12 million or so that are here illegally should be able to sign up for permanent residency or citizenship." So Romney said the same thing in 2007 but he did it on Meet the Press. He didn't do it in the form of a debate, didn't do it in the form of policy, we have the bite, it's audio sound bite 27. So Romney -- (interruption) I know he jumped all over Newt for it last night but that's because Romney probably forgot he said this in 2007. Romney no doubt forgot he said this in 2007. He said it on Meet the Press. He didn't say it in a debate. He was just answering a question, and he was posing it as an idea, as opposed to presenting it as policy. Here's Romney from Meet the Press in 2007.

ROMNEY: My own view is, consistent with what you saw in the Lowell Sun, that those people who have come here illegally and are in this country, the 12 million are so that are here illegally, should be able to sign up for permanent residency or citizenship.

RUSH: So 12 million was the number back then. He said something no different than what Newt said last night. In fact he went further, because Newt did not say citizenship. Newt purposely didn't mention citizenship for these people, and the reason for that is they can't vote if they're not citizens. So Newt obviously has thought about this to a certain extent 'cause he knows that if you grant amnesty, amnesty is citizenship, and Newt insists this is not amnesty because I'm not talking about making them citizens. And if they're not citizens, they can't vote. What Newt says, "I'm prepared to take the heat for saying let's be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship. But by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families." So Newt can say today, as he is saying, "My program's not amnesty. 'Cause I'm not talking citizenship." Therefore, these people are not gonna become automatic Democrat voters.

Newt's just going down the humane road. Newt's just saying, "Hey, look, I have a heart. We care about these people." By the way, that's something that really ticked me off because in the aftermath, you know, I watched the postgame. Kathryn and I were watching the debate, I said, "Do you want to watch the postgame?" Meaning the analysis. And we did. And this is predictable as the sun coming up, Gloria Borger and all these CNN people, "You know, you know, Newt was really good, we saw the human side of Newt. Newt actually cares about people." It's the same old thing. The standard template for conservatives is heartless, cold, cruel, mean-spirited, all of that rotgut, but Newt's proposal last night showed these CNN people and these mainstream news media people that maybe there is a heart somewhere in conservatism, maybe a conservative here or there does have a heart. That ticked me off.

It's like when Algore complimented Kemp, remember back in 1996? It was a vice presidential debate, and Gore basically praised Kemp for not being like all the other Republicans. Not being a racist pig. And Kemp said, "Thank you, Mr. Vice President." Thereby acknowledging that they're a bunch of racist pigs but he's not one. So it was the same thing last night. I made a note to myself, I got my iPhone 4S out, and I said, "Remind me to tee off on this," I got it right there on my iPhone so I would not forget. 'Cause it really ticked me off. Anyway, in truth, folks -- and we just played the audio -- Mitt Romney went further four years ago than Newt did last night. Romney talked about citizenship for them. Newt's the one taking the heavy fire today, but Romney mentioned citizenship on Meet the Press in 2007.


RUSH: This is Newt last night in the debate during a segment on immigration.

GINGRICH:  I do not believe that the people of the United States are gonna take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families and expel them.  I'd urge all of you to look at the Krieble Foundation plan. I don't see that the party that says it's the party of the family is gonna adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century, and I'm prepared to take the heat for saying, let's be humane in enforcing the law, without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families.

RUSH:  Without giving them citizenship.  That's key.  Without citizenship they cannot legally vote, which means that Newt's plan does not convert them to Democrats.  Legally.  That's a big word.  He-he-he-he.  So understandably Newt took a lot of heat from this.  Michele Bachmann was one.  After Newt mentioned this, we shouldn't be destroying families, Michele Bachmann weighed in.

BACHMANN:  Well, I don't agree that you would make 11 million workers legal, because that in effect is amnesty, and I also don't agree that you would give the DREAM Act on a federal level, and those are two things that I believe that the Speaker had been for, and he can speak for himself.  We do want to have people, and I agree with the Speaker, people like chemists and engineers and people who are highly skilled.  We think about the United States and what's in the best interests of the United States.  If we can utilize these workers like Steve Jobs wanted to, then we need to offer those visas.  That will help the United States.  But I don't agree that we should make 11 million workers who are here illegally legal.

RUSH:  Okay, so this has been the theme since last night, and of course people say, 25 years, okay, what about 20 years?  By the way, how do we know how long they've been here?  "Oh, come on, Rush, we just ask 'em."  Okay, I forgot that technique.  So we just ask 'em.  The Krieble Foundation, if you're trying to look up the Krieble Foundation, I believe it's spelled K-r-i-e-b-l-e, if you are trying to find out what the Krieble Foundation plan is that Newt cited.  So how long they been here, 25 years, what if it's 24, what if it's 20, what if it's 17, how do we know how long they've been here?  "Come on, Rush, we just ask 'em."  If they're told that they get to stay if they've been here 25 years, they'll tell you that they've been here 25 years.  Well, how we gonna prove if they haven't been here 25 years?  Well, don't ask me, not my plan.  I don't know. 

But, anyway, the media reacting somewhat favorably to this in the sense that Newt has a heart.  I tell you, it infuriates me, I can't begin to tell you how it infuriates me to listen to these holier-than-thou, uppity media people sit there, they're superior to everybody, they've got hearts, they've got compassion, and the natural template for conservatives is they're cold-hearted, mean-spirited extremists.  Oh, look, Newt's got a heart. Oh, wow, why, you know what, that may change my opinion of Newt.  That's what Gloria Borger actually said last night in the postgame.  So Newt fired back at Bachmann.  Borger herself said, "Michele Bachmann's campaign put out something immediately which said that Newt Gingrich is opening a door to amnesty.  What would your response to that be?"

GINGRICH:  That is just totally inaccurate.  What I've said is the Krieble Foundation has a very good program for legalization without citizenship for people who have been here a long time.  Now, I want to say go home to lots of people. I want to create a border that's controlled.  I want a guest worker program outsourced to American Express or Visa or MasterCard. I want English as the official language of government.  I'm willing to be tough, but I'm not willing to kid people, and I can't imagine any serious person here in this country that believes we're gonna tear families apart that have been here 20 or 25 years.

RUSH:  So Gloria Borger then said, (imitating Borger) "Well, do you think the Republican Party's hurt itself with the Hispanic community because there might be that perception that you want to rip their families apart and you Republicans hate people and you Republicans are mean-spirited extremist hatemongers and you want to tear apart the Hispanic population.  Do you think maybe the Republican Party's hurt itself with this hateful view of Hispanic people and all people of color, you scum?"

GINGRICH:  Sure, I think it makes -- it's not just the Hispanic community, but we have people who come to America from the whole planet.  I think Governor Romney had it right tonight when he said we favor immigration, we favor legal immigration.  We actually would have more opportunity for people who are talented to stay and, frankly, it's the Democratic Party and the labor unions who block that.  So I mean it's a mixed bag but I think it's important because I think somebody up here is gonna be president, and I think that hopefully it's gonna be me, but one of us is gonna be, it's important for us to unify the country by having an honest conversation, not just a series of slogans.

RUSH:  Okay, so that's how it went last night on the immigration side.  And let's go back, here's Mitt Romney -- grab audio sound bite 27 now -- because while everybody's harping on Newt from last night claiming amnesty or whatever they're claiming, when he specifically said he's not talking about granting them citizenship.  And if you don't grant them citizenship they can't vote, and without citizenship Newt's saying it's not amnesty.  And Romney, back on Meet the Press, in December of 2007.

ROMNEY:  My own view is, consistent with what you saw in the Lowell Sun, that those people who have come here illegally and are in this country, the 12 million are so that are here illegally, should be able to sign up for permanent residency or citizenship.

RUSH:  Oh!  Well!  Four years ago Mitt Romney actually talked about citizenship for them.  Let's see if that's picked up on today.  Let's see, just out of curiosity, you think so, next week?  You think they'll go find the Romney bite?  Really?  Think so?  Okay, all right.  Did he jump all over Newt?  Romney jumped all over Newt and said what he's proposing is a magnet for illegals to come here?  How is it a magnet if you gotta be here for 25 years before we welcome you?


RUSH: Columbia, South Carolina. Hi, Mike. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hi.

CALLER: Thanks, Rush. Good to talk to you. Happy Thanksgiving.

RUSH: Same to you, sir.

CALLER: Lend me half of your big brain here and help me solve a contradiction -- or at least I think it is. On the one hand, the Feds always want to take responsibility for immigration -- you know, ICE and everything else.

RUSH: Yeah?

CALLER: But when the states try to make laws and step in where the Feds have failed they say, "No, no, no! You can't do it." They're suing seven states now to stop that." County sheriffs like Joe Arpaio, they've been trying to stop him from enforcing the law for years.

RUSH: Correct.

CALLER: Municipalities like... Wasn't it a town in Pennsylvania last year, I think, that made the news when it passed that law that landlords can't rent property to illegals and the Feds stepped in and said, "No, no, no. You can't do that"? Individuals or groups of individuals like the Minutemen a couple years ago that were down on the border trying to stop it, the Feds said, "Oh, no, no, no! You can't do that." They sent the federal marshals down there to stop them. Until it comes to giving illegals jobs and paying them money, then the Fed wants to wipe their hands of the issue and make criminals out of the businessmen that hire 'em to work in their plants and even the individuals that hire 'em to do yard work or be a nanny or whatever. Is this just simply a case of the Feds wanting to take responsibility until it's not convenient for 'em or is there something more to that? What do you think?

RUSH: Well, I'll just give you a little bit of information before giving you my opinion on this. The DOJ just announced today that they're suing Utah.


RUSH: I think you have to look at this particular DOJ. You have to look at this regime and what I am firmly convinced of is that this administration does not want to stop illegal immigration.

CALLER: Of course not.

RUSH: They want as many people in this country as possible that will potentially be converted to Democrat voters. That's what they want. They have to have some show of caring about it, so it's much less impactful to go after a company hiring illegals than it is to support a state keeping them out. Supporting a state keeping them out, keeps them out. They don't want 'em out. They want 'em in here. They'll deal with 'em once they're in here. Then they'll go after these businesses for hiring them as a show of having some interest in it, but that's all it is. In my opinion, it is simply just a show. 



Rush 24/7 Audio/Video

Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show
Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show



Most Popular

EIB Features