RUSH: Chuck Schumer. You know, we had Marco Rubio on here Tuesday, and Senator Rubio made it plain (and not just here) that if border security is not first, second, third, fourth, and last in immigration reform, then he's not gonna support the final bill. If it's a phony attempt at securing the border, he's not on board. If they don't do it at all, he's not on board. He was very adamant about this -- and he's right, by the way.
Without securing the border and without stopping any further illegal immigration, whatever else is done about the however many millions who are already here is academic. So I don't know what his reaction to Senator Schumer is, but Senator Schumer yesterday in Washington said (paraphrased): "Border security? That's not gonna stop us." Here, listen to what Schumer said. He got a question from a reporter who said, "You talked a little bit about defining metrics by securing the border. Do you have a general sense, a rubric of what that might be, a secure border?"
Can you imagine? Yeah, I can tell you what a secure border is. Nobody gets over it!
Anyway, here's what Schumer said...
SCHUMER: We want the border to be secure. It's more secure than it was several years ago, but it has a ways to go, and different sectors need different types of security. It's a lot different having security in the Tucson sector than off the stretch in Texas, which is bounded by the Rio Grande. But we're not using border security as an excuse or block to the path of citizenship. We just want to make sure -- and this is very important both substantively and politically -- that there is a secure border, and we're gonna work for that.
RUSH: Now, when he says "we," he's talking about the Gang of Eight of which Rubio is a member. So he's saying that the Gang of Eight says, "We're not using border security as an excuse or block to the path of citizenship." Now, I'm very curious how Senator Rubio is going to react to that, because this seems at variance with what Senator Rubio's demands/desires are. (interruption) Well, he didn't even say that.
HR is whispering in my ear, "This is kind of like Schumer saying, 'We're gonna try.' He said, 'Yeah, we want a security border. Oh, yeah! Who doesn't want a secure border? But we're not using border security as an excuse or block to the path of citizenship.'" Well, Rubio has said, "If you don't secure the border, I'm not signing the rest of this bill," which is devoted to a path to citizenship.
Then at the end of his bite, Schumer said, "We just want to make sure -- and this is very important both substantively and politically -- that there is a secure border, and we're gonna work for that. It's very important. But if there isn't one, it's not gonna derail us. I understood Senator Rubio to say that it might derail him. (interruption) No, I don't expect him to pull out of the Gang of Eight. Yet. Not because of this. But it ought to raise some red flags.
RUSH: One more thing about immigration and the immigration bill and the president, the Gang of Eight. I mention this frequently, the concept that every day a template or a narrative is established, and everybody follows it, everybody falls in line. The Democrats, of course, follow it. The media follows it, they set it. The White House sets it. The Republicans follow it. And then the inside-the-Beltway media, they follow it, too, whatever the agenda of the day is. If it's gun control, then it's talked about in that way, whatever way is set out by the regime or by the media.
Now immigration, I'll use this as an example. We were just talking about Senator Schumer and border security and Rubio and border security. If border security doesn't happen, we're not gonna sign the rest of the bill. And of course everybody gets caught up in that, ignoring reality. It's the old whipsaw comment I made. Every day we wake up, it's a new crisis. A managed crisis, fear is the number one objective, or form of manipulation. But border security would require what? Enforcement, correct? If you come up with a new piece of legislation that satisfies the border security crowd, it would have to then be enforced for it to be worth anything.
Now, do we not already have laws on the books about border security? We do. And some of them are not enforced now. That's why so many people get across. The overall question that I have, and my problem with this latest attempt at comprehensive immigration reform is that assumptions are made that are totally illogical. For example, Obama is a lawless president when he needs to be. If he doesn't like a law, he ignores it or countermands it with an executive order. So what good is an agreement with him on anything, if he's not gonna abide by it? Yet that's never considered. It is never mentioned. People just get caught up in the inertia of whatever the latest daily template is, and they talk about it in their predictable ways, be they Republicans or Democrats.
I mean, here's a guy who actually sued the State of Arizona for attempting to enforce existing federal law. So when we have proponents of comprehensive immigration reform going on television and waxing eloquent about border security and the path to citizenship, you gotta remember, we're talking about a president who essentially will ignore whatever he wants to ignore or thinks he can get away with it. So to me it's kind of worthless, it's a waste of time, maybe, but it's one of these exercises in futility.
I mean everybody can say things for the record, it will be documented and reported, and then voters can hear what people say and like it or not, agree with it or not, form alliances with politicians because of what they say, and then what's heard. But the reality is oftentimes not part of whatever's discussed. Barack Obama is on record, I mean, he's got a record, a track record of ignoring existing immigration law. So what good will new immigration law be, if that's the case?
I just never hear that as part of anybody's discussion about the latest comprehensive immigration reform act. If the system were working right, for example, and if Congress had any sense of their constitutional obligation to protect their role, their institutional role, then they would react to Obama in a different way. They would defund elements of the executive branch until he demonstrated he would execute the laws faithfully. Now, I know that's never going to happen, but that's the way the system that Obama is doing battle with was designed to work.
My point, Obama's gonna do what he wants no matter what the law ends up being, and we know that because he already has. He's not gonna feel obligated by any new rules. If he's not going to obey existing rules, why is there the assumption that whatever new law is passed will be obeyed. It's my only question.