Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: Now, and as we always do, we introduce our discussion of illegal immigration and the Senate bill legislation to destroy the Republican Party, and we all stand for the Star Spanglish Banner.

(Playing of the Star Spanglish Banner.)

RUSH: That’s José and the Illegals or (José y Los Illegales) and the Star Spanglish Banner. It’s great to have you with us, by the way, on the program today. This from the Salt Lake Tribune. They just updated mere moments ago. ‘Angry Utahns by the hundreds are calling, e-mailing and faxing Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, demanding he oppose an immigration bill’ that’s in the Senate right now. ‘Those voters generally receive a coy answer. ‘My public position is that I’m reviewing the amendments,’ Bennett said Tuesday. It’s a ploy meant to defuse emotion. But here’s what Bennett’s staffers are not saying: he plans to vote for it. And he points to St. George as part of the reason why. St. George is the fastest-growing metro area in the nation, mostly because people from California and Las Vegas continue to relocate there. In many ways this Washington County economic powerhouse is fueled by workers from Mexico and other Latin American countries. ‘One of the realities is our economy is dependent on labor that is coming from illegal immigrants and that is true of St. George,’ Bennett said.’ Now, Orrin ‘Hatch hasn’t said how he will vote, but his office has been hit by a similar deluge of voters arguing against the immigration compromise. ‘The intensity of the callers is tremendous,’ said spokeswoman Heather Barney. ‘Many are very very angry.”

This is the thing that irritates me about this. I don’t think right now they care what you think. They cared what you thought when it came to the Dubai Ports Deal, but they don’t care what you think about this. They are locking arms in the Senate to force this on the country, and it’s nothing short of scary. Many people have said they’ve never seen quite a divide between constituents and representatives and senators in a long time, and it seems to be deepening. The more they hear from you it seems like the more dug-in in their position to oppose what you want they become. It’s sort of like a human nature thing in the sense that nobody likes to be told what to do. I’m not saying some of these guys don’t support it on their own for whatever inexplicable reasons to us, but it is clear that all of this outpouring of complaints that they are hearing is causing them to stiffen their backs. Now, there are a lot of things that if you read this bill — and the first two stories I have here in the stack are indications of all kinds of things in this bill that literally make no sense, and the president’s out there saying, ‘Read the bill.’

I’m wondering: ‘Who has read the whole bill, who is supporting it?’ Stanley Kurtz of National Review Online has done some great work on ‘chain migration.’ Now, you know what chain migration is. (If you don’t, stick with me on this.) Chain migration, according to Stanley Kurtz, is killing Europe and causing serious difficulties here in the United States as well. ‘In conjunction with New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are sponsoring amendments designed to strengthen and expand family reunification polices, thus making the chain migration problem far worse than it already is.’ Now, the point is that everybody is out there saying, ‘This is not about families.’ Well, it’s about families and meritocracy. It’s about work. But the fact is, it is about families! ‘The other day, Sen. Menendez gave a speech in which he rejected the term ‘chain migration’ as ‘dehumanizing.’ Well, it’s a helpful term in common use among academics — very much including academics who have no problem at all with chain migration.’ Kurtz links to an ‘article on chain migration among Hispanic immigrants in the United States. The piece gives supporters and opponents of the practice a chance to sound off.’ Now, ‘the picture it paints,’ according to Stanley Kurtz at NRO, ‘is far from comforting. The article focuses on the story of one man, Pablo Baltazar, legalized in the 1986 amnesty,’ Simpson-Mazzoli. ‘Baltazar was able to bring over the entire, extended Baltazar family by importing all nine of his siblings, followed by their spouses, and children. More disturbing — and in a clear echoing of the European pattern — the article notes, ‘Chain migration has cleared out [an] entire village in Mexico.

‘And it has turned areas of rural North Carolina into places where Spanish is the dominant language.’ That is the heart of the problem. Not only does chain migration make nonsense of numerical limits, it transfers entire extended clans — even whole villages — from one country to another. By setting up a little world that’s culturally and linguistically just like the originating country, chain migration effectively blocks assimilation,’ and this bill promotes chain migration while people are out there saying it does just the opposite! ‘Amnesty isn’t the only serious danger in this bill. If either the Clinton or Obama amendments pass, the story of the Baltazar clan will be magnified many times over. But the kicker is that, while claiming to end chain migration, the immigration bill as written will actually accelerate extended family reunification (by clearing out the huge existing applicant backlog) for the next eight years. So even without the Clinton and Obama amendments, we are looking at a chain migration fiasco,’ with this bit of legislation. Those of you in this audience instinctively know this because it’s happening now, to one degree or another — and then we have Senator Bennett (God love him; God bless him) talking about how we need these illegals to support the economic base of an area in his state of Utah. Once again, we are, I guess, being asked to accept the notion that the future of America is dependent on low-wage, uneducated, unskilled labor. It’s mind-boggling.


RUSH: I just got a note from a friend who says that when Hillary heads into Utah to campaign, she’ll probably announce she’s discovered some long-lost Hispanic bloodline in her family, and wear a sombrero to the campaign appearance instead of a Yankee hat. Welcome back. El Rushbo, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, while in service to humanity. In the Wall Street Journal today, their editorial is also available at OpinionJournal.com: ‘The Legal Visa Crunch,’ and the Wall Street Journal pretty much in support of this bill, or they have been. This editorial says, ‘The Senate bill is worse than current law for skilled immigrants.’ I don’t have time to read the whole thing here, but we will link to it at RushLimbaugh.com. ‘The vote last week to halve the size of a guest-worker program for low-skilled workers is a big step in the wrong direction; skimping on visas will only lead to more illicit border crossings,’ the theory being that if you let 400 grand in here a year you’re going to be putting less pressure on people coming in here illegally. What’s the difference? I swear!

I swear some of this just does not compute or make any sense at all. Whether 400,000 are coming in legally or not, they’re all going to be legal once they get in here, once this thing passes. This notion that they have to have been here prior to January 1st, who’s going to be able to prove that or disprove it, when somebody says they were when they weren’t? At any rate… ‘[T]he goal here is to move immigration policy away from a system based on family connections and toward one based on skills. The Senate measure calls for a ‘merit’ system that awards points to would-be immigrants based on their education and work experience. But employers who recruit foreign professionals — and aren’t too keen on Uncle Sam taking over those duties — are balking at the proposal [in the Senate] on grounds that it will introduce all sorts of inefficiencies to their hiring.’ Now, we’re talking about legal here. This is stunning to go through this, and when you look at the hoops and the restrictions that are being placed on legal immigrants, highly skilled, educated people from around the world who want to come into this country.

When you look at the hoops they have to jump through and the limits — and boy, we are going out of our way to control the number of those that can get in here! Yeah, we’re going to raise their fees! We’re treating legals here as though they’re the illegals. ‘U.S. businesses aren’t looking for skilled workers in general; they’re looking for people with specific skills. And in the high-tech industry especially, where the demand for new products and services is constantly changing, employers need the flexibility to fill critical positions as quickly as possible. The last thing Hewlett-Packard or Texas Instruments needs is uncertainty about whether the workers they want to hire will pass some bureaucratic point test. If the Senate wants the U.S. to keep attracting the world’s best and brightest, this bill is an odd way of showing it.’ So here, on the legal side, we are focusing on merit, not families. On the illegal side, it’s chain migration. ‘Okay, Pablo, come on in, and then bring everybody! Your brothers, your sisters, and their wives, bring everybody in, Pablo.’ It’s not based on merit at all. In fact, on the illegal side, the less merit, the less skill, apparently, the better!

‘Last month the supply of H-1B temporary visas for foreign professionals not only ran out in one day, but [it] did so six months before the October start of the 2008 fiscal year. It’s the fourth straight year that companies have exhausted the supply,’ of H1B temporary visas; these are the highly educated, qualified immigrants, ‘before the start of the year, which is a clear market signal that the cap should be raised,’ on the number of people allowed in, ‘if not removed. The Senate bill would increase the supply of H-1B’s by 50,000 to 115,000 and put in place a market-based escalator that couldn’t exceed 180,000.’ Now, the Journal says here, ‘That’s an improvement, but it will still leave too many firms in the lurch. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects growth of about 100,000 jobs per year in computer and math science occupations between 2004 and 2014. Worse, the visa increase is combined with other provisions that seem designed to make employing foreign professionals both costly and cumbersome. Larger companies can probably live with the proposed increase in the fee for each H-1B visa hire (and renewal) to $5,000 from $1,500. But companies would also be forced to prove for the year surrounding the hiring of a foreigner — six months before and six months after — that a U.S. worker has not been displaced.’

Unbelievable! So we’re going to go out and we’re going to hire — and we’re going to allow 180,000 max, qualified highly educated, skilled workers to come in, but the employer has to prove that a qualified American hasn’t lost his job in the process. Now, one of the reasons for this so-called economic boom that’s taking place in Senator Bennett’s Utah, and he says (paraphrased), ‘In Georgetown we couldn’t get away and this community wouldn’t survive without the influx of the illegal immigrant labor force.’ Why do you think that is? Why, people are fleeing California and Arizona in droves to get away from the influx! Some of this stuff is so plain as day, it’s right out in the front of everybody’s nose at his, and it’s just being ignored. That town in Utah would not be booming if so many people from California and Arizona weren’t leaving the states and fleeing for their lives. That’s why that town is booming, because people are moving to Utah. They’re moving to Idaho. They’re moving to Montana and other places from California and from Arizona. Meanwhile, on the legal side… Can you imagine if, on the illegal side, employers that hired them had to prove that an American was not losing a job in the process, for six months before and six months after?

Try this: ”The H-1B program is already costly, and all things being equal there’s already a heavy incentive to hire Americans,’ says Robert Hoffman, Oracle’s vice president of government and public affairs. ‘But there comes a point where the program is so costly that we have to decide if it’s better to move this work offshore. And that’s something that can’t be in our overall national interests.” They’re talking about in order to find the qualified people they wan — at the wages they want. Let’s all admit here that an immigrant, highly skilled and highly qualified — and I know some of you in this audience are just making a mad dash to the phone, saying, ‘Wait a minute! This is really no different than the illegal side, Rush. They’re just trying to get cheap labor in there. There are plenty of Americans to do these H1B jobs, but they want to pay the immigrants less money than us because they’ll accept less money.’ I understand that. Labor costs are one of the primary objectives businesses tackle, try to keep down and so forth. But this guy from Oracle said (paraphrased), ‘Hey, we may have to take the company offshore,’ i.e., getting away from US law on this, ‘to hire the people we need, to hire the people we want.’ He says, ‘If we have to do that, we’re going to take a PR hit. That cannot be in our overall interests or the country’s interests.’

The Journal concludes here: ‘It’s obvious that the immigration bill was written with the fate of 12 million illegal aliens foremost in mind. But we hope Congress is mindful that foreign professionals also fill important niches in the U.S. labor market that help keep American companies competitive and jobs stateside. Immigration policies should acknowledge…’ Now, get this graph from the Journal editorial today. ‘Immigration policies should acknowledge that the U.S. is not producing enough home-grown computer scientists, mathematicians and engineers to fill our labor needs.’ Now, I know there are a bunch of you computer scientists and mathematicians and engineers out there screaming at the radio saying, ‘That’s not true! It’s not true! They just won’t pay what we’re worth as Americans.’ I know. I know you’re out there. But the Journal is passing it off here as that there’s a shortage of qualified people in these industries — and, by the way, the high-tech Silicon Valley people will agree with that. I’ve talked to a couple of them. They have called this program. They’ve lamented the hoops and the restrictions of the H1B visa program. ‘Last year, U.S. universities awarded more than half of their master’s degrees and 71% of their Ph.D.s in electrical engineering to foreign nationals. It’s foolhardy,’ says the Journal, ‘to educate these individuals and then effectively expel them so that they can put their human capital to work for U.S. competitors. There’s no shortage of countries that would be thrilled to benefit from a U.S. brain drain.’ It’s probably happening. We are probably kicking them out of the country, for whatever reason, getting them out of there. We’re educating the rest of the world and they become our competitors. There’s so much wrong with so much of this, and it’s so plain as day. It’s right out in front of everybody’s face to see, and I guess the fix, ‘It just too big, Rush. It’s just too hard!’ It sounds to me, though, like the way we’re dealing with legal immigration would be the ideal way to deal with the illegals.


RUSH: Now, there’s a story from TheHill.com today. ‘House conservatives are ready to stop the Senate immigration bill in its tracks with a potent procedural weapon should the contentious measure win passage in the upper chamber. The trump card conservatives may hold is a constitutional rule that revenue-related bills must originate in the House. The Senate immigration measure requires that illegal immigrants pay back taxes before becoming citizens, opening the door to a House protest, dubbed a ‘blue slip’ for the color of its paper.’ Supporters in the Senate, they’re on their Memorial Day recess, and you people are giving them all kinds of static. There’s a wildfire out there. All of these senators are hearing about it. The Senate is reaching out to their Republican conservative friends in the House, and the House guys are not taking to this well. They say we don’t want to do this but a blue slip ‘may be their only recourse to stop a process they believe Democrats will dominate’ once they go to conference with the House.

‘The back-taxes provision that could trigger the blue slip came from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who continues to take heavy fire on the presidential hustings for supporting the immigration deal. McCain introduced a back-taxes amendment after a conference call in which Republican bloggers…’ that was primarily Captain Ed Morrissey of Captain Quarters. ‘…mentioned reports that the Bush administration had asked that this year’s bill not force the very costly process of tax collection among illegal immigrants.’ So McCain was out there trying to score points as a presidential candidate, (McCain impression) ‘I’m gonna put it in there. Ya got it, Sailor? We’re gonna put it in!’ So McCain put it back in, after some people had persuaded him to take it out, or the president wanted it taken out. So putting it back in, if it stays, the Republicans can say, ‘This bill is flawed, can’t go with it this way.’

Now, it could easily be fixed by simply the Senate doing this and taking the back taxes thing out of it. We already know they’re going to wave the $5,000 fine. The fine doesn’t even kick in unless they apply for citizenship. They don’t have to do that because the minute the bill is signed into law they become legal. So if they eliminate the back taxes provision, the firestorm resulting from that, from people like you is going to be even more intense than what’s happening now. So, anyway, that’s the latest manifestation of this. You know what would be ideal, is if this thing just got bottlenecked and became part of the presidential campaign. Make it an issue that is debated by the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. That’s how this actually should occur. Not some of this back room, under cover of darkness speed to push this through while everybody is asleep before they know what’s happening. Luke in Roosevelt, Utah, glad you called, sir, nice to have you on the EIB.

CALLER: Rush it’s an honor to get to talk to you.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I had another topic but once I heard the thing about Bob Bennett, I was just trying to call in and I can’t believe I got in but I was just telling your screener, I think it’s absolutely absurd and offensive that this state to which I was born and raised in will collapse without illegal workers who have been only been here for what, the last 50 years at the tops. This state was — I’m sure many states are like this, I can only speak for Utah, this state was founded on principles and on values and on moral responsibility. And the fact that this guy who I’ve actually kind of supported would say our state’s going to collapse and we need these illegal workers to keep our state thriving, I mean it’s crazy.

RUSH: Let me read the quote to you to you, here’s what he said. ‘One of the realities is that our economy is dependent on labor that is coming from illegal immigrants, and that is true of St. George, Utah.’

CALLER: (Laughing.) I think it’s disgraceful.

RUSH: That is a stunning statement. That is an absolutely stunning statement because what he’s saying is that the future of Utah depends on low wage, unskilled and uneducated workers. Now, why do you think that there are jobs in St. George, Utah? Why is it booming? Why do you think that there are jobs for low skill, low wage, uneducated workers? It’s because people are moving there from California, Arizona, and other places that are being overrun with illegal immigration, people are just fleeing, they’re just getting out. Rather than stand and fight it, they’re just leaving. Utah is one of the places they’re going. So they’re revitalizing areas like St. George, creating the jobs for these people. It’s a which came first, the chicken or the egg situation, and what Bennett apparently is saying is that St. George wouldn’t be where it is without the illegal immigrant employee base. It’s the exact opposite. They wouldn’t have jobs if there weren’t people there to hire them.

CALLER: Exactly.

RUSH: Look, it’s what I said, folks, they have no intention of listening to you. They’re going to link their hands, link their arms, they’re going to force this on us if they can get away with it. It’s what it appears to be. Jerry in San Rafael, California, I’m glad you waited, welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. I appreciate you teaching us and educating us in how to understand things that are going on about this.

RUSH: Well, I appreciate it.

CALLER: There’s a point that I don’t think we’ve really addressed and maybe something to think about for the future but it’s the wrapping that everything comes in. It’s sort of like the means and the methods of the evildoers that want to change us in ways not beneficial to us. I’ll give some examples. The immigration thing, and actually everything they bring up to us has a framework that has a response in us. A response for those who believe them that they have a work right, and a response in most of us of some emotional like ‘how can they be so crazy’ and we go back and we come on that basis. It also sets up their response to what we say, it gives them more power. What I learned a long time, maybe 40 years ago, first year of college type stuff, was the Communist Manifesto and the point of it being psychology, that that’s their implement of war, is that they tweak us and use it in every possible way to get at us. Somewhere I heard that the only thing they spent less on the money for warfare type of things and all that jazz was the money they spent on psychological development. So they use that to tweak us and —

RUSH: Let me step in and give an example. Interesting that you mention this, because Dr. Sowell has a piece today at National Review Online, and his headline here is: ‘Want to Make It a No-Brainer? It’s all in the words you use.’ He starts this way. ‘It has long been recognized that those on the political Left are more articulate than their opponents. The words they choose for the things they are for or against make it easy to decide whether to be for or against those things. Are you for or against ‘social justice’? A no-brainer. Who is going to be for injustice? What about ‘a living wage’? Who wants people not to have enough money to live on? Then there is ‘affordable housing’ and ‘affordable health care.’ Who would want people to be unable to afford to put a roof over their heads or unable to go to a doctor when they are sick? In real life, the devil is in the details. But the whole point of political rhetoric is to make it unnecessary for you to have to go into the specifics before taking sides. You don’t need to know any economics to be in favor of ‘a living wage’ or ‘affordable housing.”

He’s got a point here because they come up with these terms, social justice, living wage, and we sit here and try to explain it, ‘No, that’s not what it is. It’s another liberal ploy to expand government, to try to come up with equality of outcomes. It’s not a living wage. It’s just a moniker. It’s just a term to get you to support them for their ultimate objective of more redistribution. It’s like the thing about Robert Bennett saying, ‘One of the realities is that our economy is dependent on labor that’s coming from illegal immigrants, and that’s true of St. George.’ Why in the world would anybody want that? Now, Bennett’s a Republican. I can tell you right now why liberal Democrats want that. These are people that are going to become dependent on an ever larger welfare state. That’s exactly what they want out of this. They love economies that are dependent on that, because that means those people are going to be dependent on the Democrats who run government. This is a huge power grab to make sure they get control and they never lose it again because there will be so many people that depend on government that they’ll never vote against Democrats, and they use these word games.

Conservatives, we talk about property rights or the market or judicial restraint or originalists, and of course those terms do not convey immediate, understandable emotion, like social justice, affordable housing, affordable health care, and those sorts of things. And you know what I’ve always said — there’s a reason for this, by the way — liberalism is the most gutless choice you can make. It’s the easiest thing in the world you can do. All you have to do is basically be for everything, for social justice, and never think about it. After you say you’re for it and you go out and vote for people who say they’re going to provide it, you think you’ve been wonderful. Conservatism, on the other hand, is difficult, because it takes thought, application, time, energy, to understand it, and then after you have understood it, it takes even more time and energy to be able to explain it in a persuasive way. It’s not because it’s harder and it’s not because it doesn’t make as much sense as liberalism. It’s the exact opposite. The reason is, conservatism is an intellectual pursuit. It’s a mental pursuit to understand the various ways systems work, how freedom is irreplaceable in any free society working — property rights, market accountability, market economics, all these terms require definitions from people that require them, A, to listen, and, B, to think.

Now, once you get people to listen and think, you’ve got ’em forever. Once you have made somebody a conservative, they don’t turn back. But liberals don’t want to hear it, all they want to do is feel good, and they don’t want to hear about things that will cause a little ripple in the cocoon in which they live. That’s why I had to laugh when the Democrats were out there hiring George Lakoff, rhymes with, a guy to help them come up with words to communicate their ideas. What they do, they need help coming up with words and phrases that mask and disguise what they really want to do and penetrate your little heart, your emotions out there and trap you that way. Liberalism is gutless. Liberalism is easy. It takes no work; it takes no challenge; takes no mental application whatsoever. Liberalism today, in fact, is propelled by the emotions of rage and hatred.


RUSH: I want to go back to this Robert Bennett quote that’s in the Salt Lake Tribune today, in the story by Matt Canham. Bennett is feilding all kinds of calls from people in Utah that are opposed to the immigration deal and he’s telling them he’s making up his mind, but the author of the story here claims that he’s already made up his mind. The staffers are not saying he plans to vote for it and one of his reasons why is St. George, Utah, fastest growing metro area in the nation. Now, there’s a reason for that, and it’s not the arrival of illegal immigrants, mostly because people in California and Las Vegas continue to relocate there. They are fleeing states where their neighborhoods are infested with illegals and they’re seeking refuge where they think there aren’t any. And they get there, and of course the illegals follow, they go to where the jobs are. So Bennett then says, ‘One of the realities is our economy is dependent on labor that is coming from illegal immigrants and that is true of St. George.’

Now, why do liberals want the uneducated poor, Third World masses moving here and not the well educated highly literate immigrants? We just shared with you this column, the editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Look at the restrictions and the enforcement and the attention paid to the admittance into this country of highly educated, highly skilled legal immigrants. It is the kind of attention that ought to be focused on the illegals. This is what the Republicans are missing. This is what they’re not getting and understanding. If they do get it and understand it, then they’ve fled the reservation, folks, they’re not Republicans anymore. Because when this same bill, Senator Kennedy, Senator McCain, writing all these restrictions on the H1B visas, all the legals, all the highly skilled, highly educated, ‘We’re going to put a limit on those. There are only going to be 150,000 a year, max, 180.’ Why is that? Why do they want all these uneducated poor Third World masses moving here and not the well educated? The answer is, uneducated are going to be far more receptive to the demagogic arguments from the left in which they promote rich against poor, the right to national affordable health care, social justice. Educated people are more open to debate and disagreement, and they are less inclined to become dependent, especially hard-working immigrants from foreign countries with strong family values.

Now, notice, too, what’s happening — what was not mentioned in this story — that Senator Bennett is carrying water for the construction industry, not the public interest generally. These jobs he’s talking about, the construction business, the place is booming, St. George is, and Senator Bennett knows that these people will have to be educated and receive health benefits, that they are not paying for. He knows full well. He knows that if he’s the guy seen out there as the one providing all that, then they’re going to keep voting for him. So the rest of the citizens of Utah — this is a microcosm for what’s happening in the country — the rest of the citizens of Utah and the country will have to have their taxes raised to pay for this. It’s called the redistribution of wealth. What’s going to end up happening is that the construction industry of St. George, Utah, will be subsidized by the rest of Senator Bennett’s constituents, and this is what voters need to understand. This is a massive desirous effort, and this is not an unintended consequence.

This is the design to bring as many of the poor Third World uneducated people, the masses into this country, and create a dependency need because obviously they’re uneducated, and they’re not going to earn high wages so they’re going to need people like you and me to pay their health care and their education and this sort of thing. ‘We’re a compassionate society, Rush, we’re not going to have them live in the streets. We’re not going to have them live beside the trash bin. We’re going to take care of them.’ Right, yeah, your taxes are going to go up in order to do that. You’re going to be subsidizing this influx. So we’ve got this booming place, St. George, a microcosm for what’s happening in a lot of the country. It’s said to be booming because of the arrival of the illegals, and guess what? We’re all going to end up subsidizing them. That’s what people have to understand about this. When the president comes out and accuses us of not understanding what’s here, we do better than most. They know what’s in it. They don’t want us to think that what we know is in it is right. Anyway, I gotta take a brief time-out here, folks. This stuff starts to agitate after awhile. That’s why I don’t want to talk about it three hours every day.

RUSH: All right, time to delve here into our illegal immigration stack, and as we always do, ladies and gentlemen, we stand for the Star Spanglish Banner prior to getting into the stack.

(Playing of José, Can You See, The Star Spanglis Banner)

RUSH: That is José y Los Ilegales and the Star-Spanglish Banner. All right, a couple of people I know, and I consider these guys friends, Jeb Bush and Ken Mehlman have a piece today in the Wall Street Journal, and what they do in this piece is blame Prop 187 in California for the Republicans losing political control of that state. You remember what Prop 187 was? Prop 187 was Californians were fed up with paying the health care and education and a lot of other entitlement programs for illegal immigrants and their children, and of course the Proposition 187 was defeated and a federal judge said it was an unconstitutional proposition in the first place. The people and their expressed will was shot down by the federal government. So Jeb Bush and Ken Mehlman today say that it was Prop 187 that led to the Republican Party losing the state of California. The point that they’re trying to make is that Republican Party is going to lose its entire national base just as it’s lost California if we oppose illegal immigration, the bill that’s going through the Senate.

Heather MacDonald at the Manhattan Institute has written a response to Jeb Bush and Ken Mehlman, which is brilliant today. She said it’s too bad that they didn’t — and, by the way, Ken and Jeb Bush say that California would still be Reagan country if that were the case. That’s not at all the case. This is where everybody on the Republican side is looking at these people as potential voters and a way to expand the Republican Party missing the point here. As Heather MacDonald writes, ‘Too bad that [Jeb Bush and Ken Mehlman] didn’t read their own op-ed. Too bad they didn’t read their own op-ed. No Republican presidential nominee has won California since 1988, they report. Prop. 187 must be one powerful toxin, if it can alienate Hispanics six years before it even exists.’ Republicans lost California long before Prop 187. ‘In fact, California’s transformation from ‘Reagan country’ to labor-union country is the far more likely consequence of the growing Hispanic population per se and the corresponding outflow of white Republicans to other states.’

Republicans have fled the state of California. It’s not that Hispanics are not voting Republican. It’s Republicans have fled. Listen to this. ‘In 1990, California was one-quarter Latino and 57-percent white; in 2000, it was 32-percent Latino and 47-percent white; in 2005, Latinos constituted 35 percent, and whites 43 percent, of the population.’ That is a microcosm of the demographic shifts that are likely to occur nationwide if this bill becomes law. That’s a profound demographic shift. You could still have a rising Hispanic population and a constant white population except for what? Whites are leaving. We just had Jan from Evergreen, Colorado, who used to live in California. She’s moved to Colorado. She said she fled illegal immigration. So this is a little microcosm here of what’s happened. The reason the white population since 1990 has gone from 57% to 43% — now, you might say, some of that’s abortion, a lot of libs out there, but a lot of it is flight, people are leaving the state. ‘These shifting demographics,’ Heather MacDonald writes, ‘have been accompanied by the growing clout of the Democratic party, and of California’s public-service unions, not because of some vestigial memory of 187, but because they appeal to low-wage, low-skilled Hispanics.’

California is a microcosm of what’s going to happen in this country if in fact this bill is to become law. I said last week we’ve lost California, we’re close to losing Florida because of this, and the nation hangs in the balance in terms of these — I’m talking political parties. This is why the Republican Party is so off base on this and doesn’t understand why this legislation is, as I dubbed it, the Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act of 2007. They want to sit there and try to tell us that Prop 187 made it possible for all these Hispanics, angry at that legislation, to join the Democrat Party? Wrong. They are low skilled. They are uneducated. They are low wage. That’s the Democrat constituency! They are not entrepreneurial. ‘Yes they are, Rush. Look at the risks they’re willing to take to cross the border and so forth.’ California will give you a good look through the looking glass as to what’s going to happen. ‘Los Angeles politics,’ Ms. MacDonald says, ‘are now closely intertwined with the unionized Left, now that Latinos in 2005 made up 47 percent of the population and whites, 30 percent.’ Don’t anybody misinterpret this.

We’re not talking here about race. We’re talking about demographics and how demographics affect political parties. Trying to disabuse people of the notion that arriving hordes of low wage, unskilled, uneducated people are going to be become conservative Republicans… the evidence isn’t there. ‘The idea that Prop. 187, now 12 years old, is driving this massive shift is fanciful. California provides a glimpse of the likely political future if poor Hispanics continue to be the fastest-growing demographic in the country.’ This is exactly why the Democrats love this! It’s exactly why they’re going to be able to remake the country in their own image. I’m sure Jeb Bush and Ken Mehlman are being honest. I’ll betcha they really think we lost California because we made these arriving Hispanics mad, Prop. 187, exactly what’s going to happen, they think, with this. But the evidence tells a different story.


RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut! One more global warming story or two, get it out of the way, move on to other things.

(Playing of ‘José, Can You See?’ the Star Spanglish Banner)

RUSH: Once again, that’s José y Los Ilegales and the ‘Star-Spanglish Banner.’ Today in the Wall Street Journal, one of the editors of the Wall Street Journal, Dan Henninger, has written a piece that, frankly, ladies and gentlemen — with all due respect, I love the people at the Journal, many good friends of mine are over there — I’m in shock at this piece. I know the Journal has its audience. It’s a business audience, and business is very much pro-illegal immigration. Nevertheless, this is the editorial page. Let me read you just some excerpts of this. ‘The state with the highest percentage growth of immigrants in those five years [2000-2005] was South Carolina, at 47.8%. Rounding out the top 10 high-growth immigrant states, all up more than 30%, are New Hampshire, Tennessee, Arkansas, Delaware, Alabama, Georgia, Nebraska, Kentucky and North Carolina. (If you really want to get away from it all, head to Wyoming — dead last with about 11,000 foreign-born and 49th in growth with a -5% rate.)’ which is why people will move there.

‘What that list of states with high rates of in-migration tells me,’ writes Mr. Henniger, ‘is that immigrants, legal or illegal, go where there’s work. They constitute what in one of the few felicitous phrases in economics is called ‘labor-force participation.’ A study last September by the Pew Hispanic Center tracked migration flows back to 1990 and found that the most notable factor affecting the rise and fall of total migration numbers was the state of the U.S. economy. What this in turn suggests is that the best way to stanch the flow of illegal immigration would be to drive the growth rate of U.S. GDP back toward zero… Labor-force participation is as American as apple pie. This country, as the saying goes, was built on work. And that may be precisely why Congress is having a hard time passing an immigration bill…. No wonder it’s hard to pass a bill. It’s hard because Congress is trying to elevate one American value, respect for the law, by demoting an American value that up to now has been an unambiguous, uncontested ideal — respect for work, for labor. The tension here,’ he writes, ‘is especially difficult for conservatives,’ because we’re conflicted here over the rule of law and the American value of the rule of law. He’s talking about the divide in the conservative ranks on this.

‘Why, then, would Republican politicians and conservative writers want to run the risk of undermining, perhaps for a long time, their core belief in the broad benefits of free-market economic forces in return for a law that hammers these illegal Mexicans?’ When I read that, I said, ‘I don’t believe that somebody from the Wall Street Journal misses it like this.’ They need to read Dr. Sowell. There’s no free market in terms of illegal labor. We don’t just let anybody that produces a good or service flood the country with it. There’s no free market when it comes to illegal products. We have all kinds of regulations and standards. We don’t let poison food come into the country, but to compare illegal immigration to free markets and other things is to exhibit (I just can’t believe I’m going to say this) a lack of understanding about free markets! ‘Conservatives also argue,’ he writes, ‘with considerable force, that any conceivable path to citizenship or guest-worker status for these workers … would be ‘amnesty’ and so make a mockery of the rule of law. But so massively setting aside years of principled, market-based argument — the environment, pharmaceuticals, labor, antitrust — to thwart these movements of immigrants is a risky proposition.’

Look, I’m not that smart, folks. Let’s admit it. I’ll be the first to admit this. I’m not that smart. I just do not think that this is what I’m thinking or saying in my opposition to illegal immigration. It’s not based on this. You know, the market is intrinsically tied to our overall culture that, these lauded workers are literally refusing to fit into and to assimilate into — and, frankly, I think our market is bigger and stronger and deeper than Mr. Henninger does and that it can withstand and adapt itself to using legal citizens who have immigrated from Mexico who share the vision of the United States, instead of those who are here just to bleed us dry. It’s a very shallow argument. I was stunned that this got published, and stunned that they think this. It’s as tough for me to say. These Journal people are some of my best friends. One of the things they have to recognize is we have a huge welfare state in this country now. The United States has become, among all other things that it is, a huge welfare state — and of course, the doors to that welfare state are opened up to these formerly illegal immigrants. If you do open those doors then the free market is not going to be so free because your taxes are going to have to rise exorbitantly in order to handle the influx of these low-wage, unskilled and uneducated people.

If you really want to talk about free markets, it seems to me you start in Mexico, don’t you? If you want to really talk about free markets, you start in Mexico and other countries that refuse to reform their tyrannies, their dictatorships, or their social economic policies, but this notion that opening our borders here is going to lead to free markets in Mexico? We’ve disproved that! That doesn’t happen. Free markets are the result of the proper distribution of capitalism. You don’t redistribute capitalism by opening the doors and the borders of this country and expanding your own welfare state. I just don’t get how these people are missing this. They want to talk about free markets all over the place. In the meantime, we’ve got a welfare state that’s going out of sight out of control, and we think that opening borders and allowing all these people from around the world — from Mexico, wherever — illegal, uneducated, low wage, unskilled, whatever you want to say, how is that somehow is going to spread capitalism? It does no such thing, and of course, the primary reason for poverty around the world is the unequal distribution of capitalism. Open borders are not going to promote any of the things the Journal stands for: limited government, the traditional conservative ideals, fiscal policy, rule of law. Open borders promote none of these things! I was disappointed. I tried to get through this show without talking about this today, but I have a duty to do it and did it.



RUSH: Bill in Union, New Jersey, welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER: Yes, Rush, are you there?

RUSH: I’m there. Yes.

CALLER: Rush, I’ve been trying to get through to you for years. You are my idol, and I finally got through to you, but the reason why I got through was a negative reason, and it’s bothering me. You are using that parody that you’re doing lately, it is great, it’s making me laugh, I agree with you all the way, but you’re using the national anthem of the United States. And it kind of hurt me.

RUSH: It hurts you to hear the national anthem —

CALLER: Used in a parody. It’s almost like burning a flag or something.

RUSH: Burning the flag. Interesting. Well, I’m sorry that it affected you that way.

CALLER: Well, it did.

RUSH: Well, but you know that I mean no disrespect.

CALLER: I know that, but the thing is, well, when I heard the Spanish version of the national anthem, that got to me, too.

RUSH: Yeah, but that was at least with the real words, as far as we know it was the real words.

CALLER: That’s what I wanted to say.

RUSH: Well, I appreciate that. Now you’re making me feel bad here.

CALLER: I didn’t want to.

RUSH: I meant no disrespect to the national anthem, Star-Spangled Banner. You know, we’re into illustrating absurdity here by being absurd. We thought that was a good way of doing it. I’ll take your complaint under advisement and I’ll ask trusted staff what they think. You are the first to say anything about it.

CALLER: I just hope I’m not causing trouble, that’s all.

RUSH: Well, you’re not causing trouble. I love finding out what the audience thinks.


RUSH: It’s great to hear from patriotic people like you. In fact, in fact you said you’ve been trying for a long time to get through, and now you finally got through and it was something negative.

CALLER: Yeah, a negative thing.

RUSH: Well, I’m sure you have a positive thing you’d like to say. You could end the call on a very pleasurable note.

CALLER: All I can say is, you are my guiding light in everything. Okay? Except this one thing.

RUSH: (Laughing.) I appreciate that. Gee, I hadn’t even thought of that, that it might hurt people’s feelings that they think we’re making fun of the national anthem, which we’re not. I mean the purpose of the Star Spanglish Banner is not to make fun of it. Well, yeah, blame it on white satirist Paul Shanklin. (Laughing.) I had nothing to do with it. I was minding my own business and it showed up. It’s not my fault, Bill. Keep a sharp eye for the video on YouTube.

RUSH: I didn’t watch the debate because I didn’t have to know what was said or know what was asked. The only thing I’m not certain of was how extensively illegal immigration was covered. I know they were asked about English as the official language, and we have those bites. Wolf Blitzer is talking here to Mike Gravel. He said, ‘I want you to raise your hand if you believe English should be the official language of the United States,’ and the only candidate that raised his hand was Senator Gravel.

GRAVEL: We speak English. That doesn’t mean we can’t encourage other languages. I speak French and English. Some people Spanish and English. But the official language of the United States of America is English.

RUSH: No other candidate agreed. Because, folks, this is nothing more than a push for voters. It’s nothing more than that, which is what’s happened every time we’ve had an amnesty program in the past: the vast majority of the illegals that are made legal end up voting Democrat. The statistics are there. It’s not even arguable. After Gravel made the comment you just heard, Obama piped up.

OBAMA: This is the kind of question that is designed precisely to divide us. Uh, y-y-you know, you’re right. Everybody —

GRAVEL: (interrupting)

OBAMA: Everybody is going to learn to speak English if they live in this country. Uh, the issue is not whether or not future generations of immigrants are going to learn English. The question is, uh, how can we come up with both a legal, sensible immigration policy? And when we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people.

RUSH: Well, now, hang on just a second. Everybody is not learning to speak English when they live in this country. That’s precisely the reason for the question, and then next was Hillary Clinton. After Obama piped up, then Hillary screeched in.

HILLARY: The problem is that if it becomes ‘o-fficial’ instead of recognized as national — which indeed it is; it is our national language; if it becomes official — that means in a place like New York City, you can’t print ballots in any other language. That means you can’t have government pay for translators in hospitals so when somebody comes in with some sort of emergency, there’s nobody there to help translate what their problem is for the doctors. So many of us, I did, at least, voted to say that English was our ‘national language,’ but not the ‘official language’ because of the legal consequences of that.

RUSH: Did anybody notice the real point in her answer? (interruption) That’s obvious. Well, it’s not that one; that’s obvious. Be hard for them to read a ballot if they can’t speak English and if you can’t print it in Spanish, it’d be hard to read a ballot. That’s a given. No. ‘You can’t have government pay for translators in hospitals so when somebody comes in with some sort of emergency there’s nobody there to help translate what their problem is for the doctor.’ Why does that have to be something the government does? Hospitals are private concerns. Why can’t hospitals themselves go out and hire translators? You see how sneaky this stuff is? I’ll bet most of you people didn’t even catch that, which is why I’m here. You probably didn’t even catch that. You were focused on all the ballot business and the rest of it just went skating by. Most people hear — and besides the government wouldn’t be able to do that. Oh, the government’s got to be able to do that. Now, the Washington Post today: ‘Backers of Immigration Bill More Optimistic; Lawmakers Cite Sense of Urgency.’ Get this: ‘After a week at home with their constituents, the Senate architects of a delicate immigration compromise are increasingly convinced that they will hold together this week to pass an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws, with momentum building behind one unifying theme: Today’s immigration system is too broken to go unaddressed.

‘Congress’s week-long Memorial Day recess was expected to leave the bill in tatters. But with a week of action set to begin today, the legislation’s champions say they believe that the voices of opposition, especially from conservatives, represent a small segment of public opinion. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who led negotiations on the bill for [the Republicans], said the flood of angry calls and protests that greeted the deal two weeks ago has since receded every day. ‘You just have to recognize you will get 300 calls, you’ll get conflicts at town hall meetings — all of them negative,’ said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who consulted with Kyl and hopes to carry a similar deal through the House in July. ‘The last few days have really turned things around.” Now, what am I missing, because I don’t sense that at all. In fact, I sense the White House is in a little bit of a bugaboo over this because they’re all caught up in the fact that everybody is calling it ‘amnesty,’ which it is. But this story purports to have these senators behind the amnesty bill as feeling pretty cocky out there today. They’ve been at home with their constituents over the weekend. They think the opposition to amnesty is fading, and the Washington Post is saying that the voices of opposition, especially the voices of conservatives who don’t like the idea, are just a small part of American public opinion.

I’m going to tell you what this story is all about. This story is all the about marginalizing conservatives. It is all about telling America, the people that get their news from the Washington Post, ‘Don’t believe all this noise you’re hearing. Don’t believe all this racket from conservatives about the immigration bill. They’re just a small bunch of very loud people, but they are by no means representative of the American people.’ If you look at the internals of this poll, which I have done, you find that it’s not looking good for the people who are proposing this. I don’t know how they’ve interpreted the poll the way they have, and in fact they may not even have to. ‘Fifty-two percent of Americans said they would support a program giving illegal immigrants the right to stay and work in the US if they pay a fine and meet other requirements. Opposition to that was 44%.’ That’s a totally misleading question. There is no fine unless they seek citizenship — and once they’re legal, why seek citizenship? It isn’t necessary! So, there is no fine. Besides, the fine is not going to survive anyway. They’re already out there talking about now — and we’re talking the $5,000 fine. We’ve been through all of this. Now, something popped up on the Drudge Report today from ABC News’ Jan Crawford Greenburg, a highly creditable writer on the Supreme Court to legal issues.

The White House is preparing a list of candidates for the next resignation of the US Supreme Court. I looked at that, and I said, ‘Well, now, that’s interesting because I haven’t heard anybody say they’re going to resign. I haven’t even heard any rumors. In fact, I’ve heard the exact opposite, that Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens are going to hang in there as long as they can because they don’t want Bush to get the opportunity to replace them and forever or for the far-out future, reshape the ‘precious and delicate balance that exists on the court today.’ So why all of a sudden does this story pop, that the administration’s preparing a list of candidates (by the way, female and minorities are included in the list) to fill vacancy? Even the story says the White House says (summarized), ‘We don’t think there’s going to be one. We don’t know that there’s going to be one,’ so why is this out there? (interruption) That’s exactly right. It’s to remind us conservatives that, ‘Hey, the Supreme Court, that’s what we really care about, and if there’s going to be one of these vacancies, we gotta hang tough here. We can’t abandon the president. We can’t go out on the limb here and threaten what might be a very contentious and yet successful nomination,’ that’s nonexistent yet.

‘Court watchers always look for resignations at the end of the term, which always happens in June,’ but it’s an attempt to rally conservatives. It’s an attempt also to change the subject. If we’re such a small little loud voice out here, why the need to change the subject? Why the need to change it so people start rallying around a nonexistent, as we speak today, Supreme Court vacancy? Meanwhile, in the Washington Times: ‘Opposition to Illegals Bill Aiding Grass-Roots GOP — President Bush’s immigration bill is hurting fundraising by the Republican National Committee, but fierce grass-roots opposition to the legislation is helping several state Republican parties. Tina Benkiser, chairwoman of the Republican Party in the president’s home state of Texas, says raising money has been successful ‘in large part to our principled stance against illegal immigration.” Well, I’ve always said, especially in politics, follow the money, and if people are giving money in droves to states where the Republican identity there is against this bill, and they’re abandoning the RNC in droves because the perceived identity is pro-illegal immigration or the amnesty bill, then how do we interpret this Washington Post folderol that all this is insignificant?

By the way, you people have resigned to it. You’re not calling these congressmen as much. They probably don’t think that you’re calling as much because I don’t think they’re probably even answering the phone anymore. How many of you are calling out there and they’re actually answering the phone at these various senators’ offices? ‘Similar reports from other state Republican officials in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa and Delaware suggest that opposition to any form of amnesty for illegal aliens is a fundraising winner.’ Okay, so we juxtapose this against the Washington Post story that reports just the opposite. It’s no big deal. It’s just a very, very small but loud bunch of caterwaulers out there. You and I are just a bunch of yahoos, folks! Make no mistake. Something else: the National Republican Senatorial Committee, not just the RNC, they are reporting similar distress. ‘The Senate committee, Republican senatorial committee raised 9.1 million through April. That’s less than half of the #18 million raised by the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee during the same period.’ So you can’t fool me.

There’s something so fishy and suspicious about the Washington Post story and the idea that this is just an insignificant group of people. This is what I meant earlier, the Republicans have such a golden opportunity. These Democrats are on parade, on full display, uttering some of the most incredible nonsense last night at their debate, and meanwhile the Republicans are joining with the Drive-Bys in trying to marginalize their base. The conservative movement is the base of the Republican Party, and the Republicans — it’s understandable that the Democrats and the media would try to marginalize conservatives and make it sound like there aren’t that many of them, but for the Republicans to be doing it…? Look, I’ve always known that the Republicans have their share of country club, blue-blooders in there that have never liked conservatives. They didn’t even really like Reagan that much. It’s always been a mystery to me, because that’s when the Republican Party won, was when the conservative base was active and excited and engaged and dominant. It’s almost like these people have a wish to be second tier.


RUSH: Yeah, ladies and gentlemen, you and I, we’re just a bunch of yahoos. We just don’t get it. For example, this story today in the San Francisco Chronicle: ‘Guest Workers Have a Long History in the United States; Temporary Programs Become the Source of Permanent Labor Force.’ It goes on and on and on to discuss the virtues of guest worker programs.

”The purpose of guest worker programs is to add workers to the labor force but not add settlers to the population,’ said Philip Martin, a UC Davis economist and leading immigration authority. ‘But the universal truism is that there is nothing more permanent than temporary workers, whether it’s in Europe, whether it’s in the Middle East, whether it’s in Asia or whether it’s in the United States. Guest worker programs tend to get larger, and last longer, than originally anticipated.” Now, he’s trying to sound the warning bells here. That’s the obligatory critic of the premise of the story. Let’s go on to page three. So it’s a universal truism. ‘Many analysts question whether a smaller program can succeed in moving illegal migrants to legal channels. ‘In order to do that, one would have to provide sufficient numbers of temporary visas,’ [Deborah Meyers, a senior analyst with the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.] said. ‘If you set an unreasonably low number, people will simply circumvent the program as they do now.” Well, damn! I thought I was a pretty smart guy, but I realize now that I am a yahoo. This is like saying, ‘The problem with bank robbery is the law. If we eliminate the law against robbing a bank, then the bank will never be robbed. You could go in there, take whatever you want or whatever you can get, and you’re not breaking the law.’

So it’s the same thing here! If we just expand to an unending infinite number the number of temporary visas, why, there won’t be any ‘temporary workers.’ Everybody will be a ‘worker.’ You see how this works, folks? Why, try this on rape. Let’s just ban the law on rape and that’s how we wipe out the problem. There won’t be any rape if there’s no law against it. Let’s wipe out the law on murder! Yes, ladies and gentlemen. There won’t be any murders. The murder rate will go to zero once we don’t have a law against it. ‘Moreover, the plan calls for temporary workers to come for two-year stints each followed by one year back in their home country for a maximum of six years residence.’ Like hell that’s going to happen! You may call for it, but nobody’s going to do it. There aren’t any enforcement mechanisms in this thing.

‘They would not be offered permanent residence, though they could earn points through a separate merit system. Republicans have insisted that ‘temporary means temporary.’ Yet the stricter such rules, the more likely they will be broken, experts said.’ See, folks? The stricter you make a rule, the more likelihood the rule is to be broken. ‘Unless laws against hiring illegal workers are strictly enforced, such a program could create a new population of illegal immigrants who stay instead of return.’ Bingo! That’s exactly what this is designed to do, under the covers. That’s exactly what this is designed to do. Nobody’s talking about the incoming illegals after we legalize the 12 to 20 million that are already here. They’re going to keep coming. Nobody’s going to stop them. There’s no incentive to stop it in this legislation. So see, the problem is we have too many rules, and they’re too stringent. We need to relax the rules, relax the stringency, and then we won’t have as many people breaking them. Try raising your kids this way.

‘If immigrant advocates think the Senate bill is tough on temporary workers, it has nothing on Singapore, which pampers high-skilled migrants but punishes low-skilled workers who overstay their visas with mandatory caning and up to six months in prison.’ So we’re being told here that, hey, this bill isn’t bad! I mean, look what they do in Singapore. You have a low skilled uneducated migrant that comes in, and if he overstays his welcome, he gets caned. We’re good people in the United States! We’re not going to cane these people, nor are we going to put ’em in prison for six months.

Now, some of you might be saying, ‘Where’s the common sense on this?’ Democrats are who they are, but the media? The media is supposed to be objective, curious. Folks, you have to understand they’re all liberals and you have to understand, to them this is discrimination — and they will not ‘discriminate.’ A liberal feels like he is committing sacrilege, a sin for which he will burn in hell if he discriminates, and these people? (crying) They’re just the poor and the downtrodden and the hungry and thirsty, and to not let them come here is discriminating against them.


RUSH: Mary in Charlottesville, Virginia, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: 1951 baby boomer dittos, Rush.

RUSH: Well, thank you. What month were you born?


RUSH: Well, I’m six months older than you which means I’m more mature.

CALLER: And wiser.

RUSH: Thank you. You’re very kind.

CALLER: Well, I went to a Republican fundraiser this Saturday and I have not heard such vitriol in one place directed against the president since Cindy Sheehan was camped out in Crawford.

RUSH: (Laughing.) Jeez. Was there a particular candidate that the fundraiser was for, or was this the party?

CALLER: It was a candidate. Well, it was for our wonderful Rob Bell, who is our delegate to the House delegates here. He wrote our anti-Kelo law, got it through, terrific guy. Virgil Goode was there. We love him. And besides being angry at the president, we’re looking for a replacement for Senator John Warner, too. And it’s the final straw with these RINOs —

RUSH: All right, when you hear about or read the Washington Post story today that says you and I are just a bunch of yahoos and all the noise that you saw at this fundraiser, it’s just a small majority of people. In fact, most of these candidates and senators are hearing that people are turning around on this, gotta get this passed. It’s just a loud but very small bunch of yahoos out there that are making noise on immigration. How does it make you feel when you hear that?

CALLER: Well, I’m hoping the JFK incident will get the non-yahoos in the country turned around, including the president. I mean, these were immigrants and Muslim immigrants. The one thing on everybody’s mind, first of all, is to enforce the border. And nobody’s fooled around here about guest workers et cetera, et cetera. Virgil Goode thinks that it’s conservative to say that the number of immigrants will go up 20,000, it’s going to be like 30 or 40,000. It’s really a scary thing. We’re a very patriotic group. We’ve been behind the president with the war on terror, and because of that we put up with his arm around Ted Kennedy with the educational bill —

RUSH: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I hear you.

CALLER: — all that stuff, but the immigration bill is too important, it’s security, it’s our children’s future. It’s really got us up in arms. I think it’s pretty widespread.

RUSH: Well, that’s the impression I got, too. But the story is out there that it’s not widespread, that in fact whatever passion there was on it, it’s cooling down now, and people like you are even changing their minds. That’s what these Senators told the Washington Post. Yeah, you’re changing your mind. They expected to get holy hell out there during the Memorial Day recess, and it didn’t happen. That’s what the Post says. They founded out that people are cooling down on this, a more reasoned view is taking hold, and they need to be smooth sailing for this bill this week, that’s what the post story says. I’ve got polling data out there that if you look deep in the internals, the polling data doesn’t support the contentions. But nothing new in that. Mary thanks much, moving on to Cookeville, Tennessee, this is Jerry. Great to have you with us, sir, hello.

CALLER: Hey, how you doing, Rush?

RUSH: Fine.

CALLER: This weekend, Senator Lamar came into town.

RUSH: Lamar Alexander, you mean?

CALLER: Yeah, Senator Lamar Alexander. And I guess he kind of thought it was just going to be a little chitchat deal, and he talked a little bit, and there was kind of a self-promotion deal like most of them do. And one woman, she told him, she said, senator, she said, ‘Senator, we have no faith in the leadership. If you guys aren’t going to enforce the laws we have now, why should we believe you with the new laws?’ Another gentleman wanted to know why they allowed La Raza to help write the bill. Another man wanted to know why we could not speak as a group, answer as a group, afterwards, instead of just going up one on one where you couldn’t hear him after. And then I asked the crowd, ‘Could I see a show of hands who supports this immigration bill.’ No hands went up.

RUSH: How many people were there?

CALLER: Oh, I figure about 150. And I asked him, can I see a show of hands of people who oppose it? And everybody in the room raised their hand.

RUSH: What did Senator Alexander do when he saw all this?

CALLER: Well, he kind of looked shocked, to be truthful. When I did get a chance to speak with him I told him if he votes for this I will not vote him ever again. I told him I’ve supported him in the past. ‘I think you’re a good man, but you’re wrong on this.’ And he told me that this bill will help strengthen the border to get new Border Patrol agents. I said, ‘Well, the agents who do their job like agent Compean and Ramos, they do their job, they go to prison. The drug dealer is walking free.’

RUSH: About this border secure business, I wish I could remember where this was. Do you know that even as we speak they are cutting the number of agents on the border? Not just agents, but all kinds of security people? The Guard’s being pulled out of there, something like that. It might have been National Review Online where I read this. Everybody was perplexed. Here you’re trying to sell a bill, and you’re telling people, ‘You’re wrong about security and you’re wrong about amnesty. We’re going to really beef up the border, and this isn’t amnesty.’ Then they just start pulling people off the border. It was perplexing to many people, thought it was a lousy sales technique. Well, it will be interesting to see. I think it’s indicative here of the Washington Post story, I think they’re going to ram this bill through the Senate and get it out of there and take it to the House and see what happens there. This is one of those instances where he listened to you and he heard what you had to say, but I think people are committed to it. I don’t think they’ll be able to talk him out of it. We’ll have to wait and see. But this Post story is going to give these people all kinds of cover here, folks. You have to understand it’s going to give ’em cover. ‘Oh, look at this, the opposition is dying down, even coming around to seeing it our way. It’s just a bunch of people out there, really mild voices, not very many of them.’

So the message is going up, ‘Don’t be intimidated by these yahoos that are screaming bloody murder because there aren’t that many of them. They’re just a budge of wacko conservatives anyway.’ There are people asking me, ‘Why do you think Hillary Clinton’s got 80% chance?’ Well, because of what’s happening to the Republican Party right now. I hate to use the word war, but I mean there’s going to be a battle within the Republican Party for who controls it, who defines it and who shapes it. The country club blue-blood types or the conservatives. Make no mistake about it, the country club blue-blooders have resented the conservative dominance of their party for as long as Ronald Reagan brought it about.

RUSH: Let me tease you with something from the immigration stack. When I saw this, it all starts to come clear and make sense now. I was scratching my head, because this bill is an abomination. It makes no practical, good sense for this country at all. Then I read who’s funding the movement and who’s really for it, and it all makes sense because they’re trying to destroy the country in their own way. ‘The Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation and Democratic activist George Soros are among the liberal funders that have donated millions of dollars to pro-immigration groups. Three of the nation’s biggest and most influential pro-immigration groups — the National Immigration Forum, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, or MALDEF, and the National Council of La Raza collectively received more than 3.25 million from Ford Foundation since 2005. Soros has given 825,000 between ’02 and ’04 to the National Immigration Forum and other amounts of money.’ When I saw this, look, it didn’t need to become that much more clear, because I was pretty clear in understanding this, but this just cemented the fact for me that my instincts were right on the money. Dingy Harry today trying to limit debate, just take this thing to the floor for a vote, and this is going to kill the bill. Why would Dingy Harry want to kill the bill?


RUSH: Here’s the latest from the AP on immigration. The headline: ‘Immigration deal survives GOP threat.’ Listen to this. ‘A bipartisan immigration bill narrowly survived a potentially fatal challenge on Wednesday when the Senate turned back a Republican bid to limit the illegal immigrants who could gain lawful status. The close vote on a proposal by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, to bar felons — including those court-ordered to be deported — from legalization reflected the delicate position of the contentious immigration bill, which remains under threat from the right and the left.’ So Cornyn proposed an amendment barring felons, and it loses! ‘The vote was 51-46 against the amendment. Democrats succeeded in sucking support from Cornyn’s proposal by winning adoption of a rival version that would bar a more limited set of criminals, including certain gang members and sex offenders, from gaining legalization,’ which is hooey because it’s not going to do that, either.

There’s no incentive to do any of this in the bill. We’ve got plenty of immigration laws on the books now, and because they’re not working, we have do this? What’s the magic in this new set of laws? So Cornyn proposes an amendment that would bar felons including those court-ordered to be deported for legalization, and it loses! It loses. Did you hear me? An amendment to bar felons and those who are court-ordered to get out of the country failed! We welcome you felons into America, and if you’re a felon and an illegal already here, we want you to stay. United States Senate, June 6th. You know, if anybody’s still alive out there from D-Day, the anniversary is today, 63 years ago, what are you thinking here? More on that as the program unfolds.

Now, we still have the story, this ran yesterday at TheHill.com, Capitol Hill newspaper. ‘Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) yesterday set the stage for a vote to limit debate on the immigration bill, a move that risks destroying the fragile reform deal. Reid told reporters that he plans to file for cloture on the immigration bill by today at the latest, frustrating Republicans who have blasted what they consider sluggish progress on their priority amendments. While the bipartisan team of immigration negotiators have won reprieves from Reid before, the Democratic leader was unruffled by the threat of GOP ‘grand bargainers’ joining a filibuster.’ Now, Reid said he planned to set a Senate vote for Thursday — actually that’s tomorrow. Not today. I’ve been saying today. I’m sorry. That’s because I read this last night. Okay, this is still my mistake. But it is an honest mistake, it’s not understandable mistake, it’s a mistake anybody would have made so it’s not going to take away from my new accuracy rating. But the vote is tomorrow. Dingy Harry said he planned to set a Senate vote for Thursday on his motion to limit debate. It was unclear with Republican objections it would garner the 60 votes needed in order to shut off debate and vote on the thing. Now, why?

The conventional wisdom — and it’s worth what it’s costing you, by the way — the conventional wisdom is that it’s not going to survive this, that if it doesn’t get 60 votes, the thing is dead. Why would Dingy Harry do this? It’s anybody’s guess. I think one of the things that’s happening is that more and more people are finding out how abominable this thing is. They didn’t want this to be known. Their plan was to negotiate this behind closed doors, in secret, and then ram it through with no debate, as McCain called it, no extracurricular politics, to try to keep people from finding out what was in it. Last night McCain admitted at the debate that it was not the bill he would have written, but until somebody got a better idea… I got a better idea, enforce the current law that we’ve got now. Common sense, though, has no place in this, obviously. The second thing is, possibly, that, you know, have you seen the latest round of congressional ratings? They are in the toilet, folks. Don’t think these guys aren’t aware of that. There’s also a third thing. This is a slight possibility, not very likely, but it’s possible.

If this bill gets beaten back, if we stop this bill, this is going to be the biggest victory conservatives have had against this administration since the Harriet Miers nomination. That got us the Justice Alito nomination. Could we get a Justice Alito equivalent in a new immigration bill? Don’t think for a moment that the libs and the Drive-Bys would not love to see a huge conservative beat-back of President Bush and his administration on anything. You know they would make hay about that. I don’t think this is one of the reasons, because I think that they’re more concerned about their plummeting poll numbers in Congress and the fact that as people start to learn the details of this, it will have an impact on the next election. But they’re torn because it’s a whole bunch of new voters out there. This is a built-in expansion of the Democrat Party, and as I called it earlier, it’s the Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act of 2007.


*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.

RUSH: From Allentown, Pennsylvania, we own Allentown, by the way, ‘A federal judge on Thursday struck down the city of Hazleton’s tough anti-immigration law, which has been emulated by cities around the country. The Illegal Immigration Relief Act sought to impose fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs. Another measure would have required tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit. U.S. District Judge James Munley declared it unconstitutional Thursday and voided it based on evidence and testimony from a nine-day trial held in March. The city will almost certainly appeal. Hazleton’s Republican mayor pushed for the laws last summer after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting. Mayor Lou Barletta argued that illegal immigrants brought drugs, crime and gangs to the city of more than 30,000, overwhelming police and schools. Immigrant groups sued, saying the laws usurp the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate immigration, deprive residents of their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process, and violate state and federal housing law. The city, 80 miles northwest of Philadelphia, estimates its population increased by more than 10,000 between 2000 and 2006. Testimony during the trial put the city’s illegal immigrant population at between 1,500 and 3,400.’ So the federal judge has voided the law, tough anti-immigration law in Hazelton, Pennsylvania.

There’s other immigration news in the stack today. From the LA Times early this morning, ‘GOP border bill fails in the Senate — Lawmakers clashed anew over immigration Wednesday as Senate Republicans pushed to introduce far-reaching new enforcement measures and California’s senators led an impassioned plea to allow in more foreign agriculture workers. The extended exchanges — often tart, sometimes angry — came during debate on the homeland security spending bill, creating new fault lines and deepening old ones.’ By the way, I gotta mention this, too. I was just back in Snerdley’s office, and he’s got C-SPAN2 on in there, and the Senate was debating something, I don’t know what they’re debating, but there’s an amendment. Mary Landrieu has offered an amendment saying that the primary goal of US counterterrorism efforts — she wants this as an amendment to some bill. The primary goal of US counterterrorism efforts is to kill or capture Osama bin Laden. What a pea-brained idea. Let’s say we do. I happen to think the guy is pushing up daisies anyway, but let’s say we capture or kill him. Is that going to end the war on terror? That’s the primary effort? Was the primary effort in World War II to kill Hitler? If so, folks, we failed.

Now, the thing in the Senate that they were all upset about yesterday was a narrowly focused measure ‘included funds for 700 miles of fencing, 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 23,000 Border Patrol agents, 105 ground-based radar sensors, and four unmanned planes.’ So the idea here was, okay, this Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act of 2007 went down to defeat, and somebody said, ‘Let’s do this. Let’s go back and let’s do some specific things. The American people want border security, so let’s do it.’ The Democrats wanted no part of this. The Democrats stopped this border agreement measure in the Senate. It was narrowly focused, and that’s what they didn’t like about it.

‘The original enforcement amendment was the brainchild of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the original sponsors of the Senate immigration bill. During that debate, he argued that the only way to successfully overhaul immigration laws was to attack all aspects of the problem at the same time, from border enforcement to the need for migrant labor. On Wednesday, Graham announced that the comprehensive approach had failed. ‘Just because it failed does not mean the problems posed by illegal immigration have gone away,’ he said. ‘We’re now moving to Plan B,” which was border security, the fence and the vehicle barriers. His statement ‘drew a tough rebuttal from one of Graham’s former allies, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). ‘This amendment does nothing to secure our nation and everything to tear it apart,’ Kennedy said in a statement.’ Okay, that’s this morning’s LA Times.

Washington Times. ‘Eager to demonstrate to a skeptical public that Congress is determined to tackle illegal immigration, the Senate today added $3 billion to a homeland security spending bill to pay for thousands more Border Patrol agents, 700 miles of border fencing and sophisticated technology,’ blah, blah, blah. ‘The action marked a surprising reversal from Wednesday, when it appeared the extra border security funding would fall victim to partisan and philosophical disagreements. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a highly unusual floor speech, admitted today that he’d thrown ‘a little tantrum’ the night before when he pulled the $3 billion amendment after an objection by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.’ Well, we’ve got the story on that in the stack. They were going along just fine, then Dingy Harry did insult Cornyn and that led to contretemps, and so forth and so on. But now they’ve added $3 billion for border security so whatever happened last night apparently has been overcome. This is not the final vote here. They’ve got an amendment here to the homeland security bill, and that’s yet to be voted on in its entirety, because the Washington Times from yesterday said Senate Democrats yesterday defeated a Republican effort to authorize $3 billion to new border security immigration enforcement. Instead, Democrats proposed a new agriculture workers program to bring in hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and grant legal status to illegal aliens now working in the fields.

What’s happening here, the Democrats are trying to do exactly what the Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act of 2007 wanted to do, was grant amnesty right off the bat, but this time they said we’ll just do it to agricultural workers, we’ll start off small. And that didn’t fly. So border security apparently has now been added to the bill. And then there’s this. ‘US businesses are bracing for a possible major crackdown on illegal foreign workers, as the government seeks to give immigration authorities more power to punish companies hiring undocumented workers. President George W. Bush’s administration has proposed a federal regulation that unions warn could lead to mass firings nationwide by companies seeking to avoid prosecution and fines.’ This story goes on to detail how businesses are very much upset, very worried about the crack down on illegal foreign workers and so forth. They might have to obey the law.

Also this town in Connecticut, New Haven, where Yale is, they passed this law saying any illegal immigrant, come on in. You’re going to be fine and dandy here with us, was the essence of it. I said, well, that’s cool. We need to really applaud the people of New Haven and send a memo out to every illegal immigrant, ‘Go to New Haven. They want you.’ We need to applaud and congratulate the taxpayers of New Haven for agreeing to support all of this.


RUSH: Here’s another definitive story on the border security fight. It does seem, ladies and gentlemen, as though Dingy Harry blinked a little bit here. ‘Senate Democrats and Republicans came together Thursday to devote an additional $3 billion to gaining control over the U.S.-Mexico border, putting Congress on a path to override President Bush’s promised veto of a $38 billion homeland security funding bill. The deal was approved by an overwhelming 89-1 vote it. It resurrects a GOP plan launched Wednesday to pass some of the most popular elements of Bush’s failed immigration bill, including money for additional border agents and fencing along the southern border. The Democrats like the money, but they objected to Republican proposals that allowed law enforcement officers to question people about their immigration status and cracking down on those who overstay their visits. [Dingy] Harry and Senator John Cornyn of Texas resolving differences overnight announced agreement this morning, Cornyn won a promise to have some of the money used to go after immigrants who had entered the US legally but had overstayed their visas. Reid had apparently thought earlier that Cornyn wanted harsher language. ‘I was wrong. Senator Cornyn was right,’ acknowledged a sheepish [Dingy] Harry.’ Well, the man running the country, that’s me, you know it and I know it, wins again.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This