RUSH: Here’s Bruce in Farmington, New Mexico. It’s great to have you on the EIB Network, Bruce. Hi.
CALLER: Hey, Rush, retired Predator pilot Air Force dittos for you. Thank you so much for taking my call. I’ve got so much I want to talk to you about. But while I was on hold, one of the things I was thinking about was you’re complaining about the bastardization of our language. One of the things I really hate is, this is America; we do not have classes here. We are all Americans and we all have the same opportunity, which plays into the main point that I called you about. This Gang of Eight bill has a built-in booby trap, and what I see is, we are developing a government-instituted subclass of Americans.
These will be citizens that can’t vote and don’t have some federal benefits, and that’s prohibited by the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment. What I see Chucky and the liberals doing is they’re gonna say, “Yeah, we’ll buy into this. We’ll do it. But we learned our lesson in the health care debate. We’re gonna make sure there’s a severability clause in there.” So they get it, they get it instituted, and then they immediately go to Supreme Court. They argue that previous point, and they should easily win that. That’s an easy one. The Supreme Court throws out the restrictions, and all of a sudden whenever these guys are naturalized, whether it’s a year or 10 years, they’re complete citizens.
RUSH: Let me walk you through this. Hold it. You’ve gone through this lickety-split. I want to make sure people follow what your theory is. First off, you say the government — I’d say “the Democrat Party,” you think “the government” — needs a permanent underclass. That’s basically what you’re saying, right?
CALLER: Well, the bill will produce a government-sanctioned underclass.
RUSH: Right, government-sanctioned underclass of low-information, low-education, low-skill people.
RUSH: You don’t have to pay them very much. Then what you say is they’re gonna grant them — they’re gonna give them — amnesty and whatever else. But they’re not gonna grant them citizenship right off the bat, the right to vote and this kind of stuff. Then they’re gonna go sue themselves. They’re gonna go to the Supreme Court and say, “Wait, we can’t do what we just did.”
RUSH: “What we just did is unconstitutional.” You think the Supreme Court could agree. “Yeah, what you guys did is unconstitutional. You’ve got to give ’em benefits right now. You’ve gotta let ’em vote right now. You have to let ’em have access to the welfare system right now.” That’s your theory, right?
CALLER: Exactly, and they don’t even have to wait until somebody’s actually naturalized. Just pass the bill and then go, “Ooh, we made a mistake,” and they go to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says, “Yeah. There are severability clauses in there. Everything else stands, but they get benefits as soon as they are naturalized.”
RUSH: I can see that. Some of it, they wouldn’t even have to go to the Supreme Court. All they would have to say is, “You know, it’s just not fair what we just did.” I mean, these people, we’ve just put ’em on the path to citizenship, and we’ve told ’em they can’t vote! How fair is that? Bad for us. Our bad. So, you know what? It really isn’t fair. So we’re gonna give ’em the right to vote tomorrow. We shoulda done that.” His point is that after they get the bill signed into law, then they’re going to go do what they really intend the bill to accomplish.
They’re not gonna wait 10 years or 13 years (whatever the legislation says) for these people to acquire all these rights, benefits, or what have you. “It’s not fair that they have to wait! It isn’t fair they don’t get AFDC. It isn’t fair they don’t get benefits. How can we do this to these people? What were we thinking? We’re horrible! So we’ve gotta correct our mistakes here. Wink, wink.” Ah, it’s an interesting theory. I do think it’s applicable to voting, because I think that’s the main reason for doing this. You have two main reasons for doing this.
You have voting (for the Democrats), and low-wage labor for everybody else. There may be a third reason, too: The Democrat Party does need a permanent underclass. They’ll take it wherever they can get it, but they need it. They need a large voting bloc made up of people that don’t know very much and don’t have too many skills, therefore don’t have a whole lot of potential, therefore have a lot of dependency. Democrats want to turn them into “entitlement staters,” if you will. Those are reliable votes every election.
All they would need for this is one or two liberal federal judges to see it this way, which they could easily find. But I tell you, folks, it’s not irrational at all to be thinking this way. I mean, there’s always something in every piece of legislation. An unintended consequence or something pops up that nobody thought of (although they actually did, they just didn’t tell you) that has to be dealt with right away. “It’s a mistake that was made in our haste,” blah, blah, blah, blah.
That’s why the focus here in talking about this is: What do people really want? I mean, why are we doing this? Simple question: Why are we granting amnesty? Why are we providing lip service to border security? Why are we doing it? I mean, what…? If you’ve got two scenarios, one scenario is that there are 11 or 12 million people here who are not legal. They have violated the law in coming. But they’re here, and they’re doing things. They’re working or whatever they’re doing. That’s Situation A. Over here, “That’s not right. We’ve gotta bring those people out of the shadows. We can’t have 11 million people here as a result of breaking the law.”
We’ve been getting along just fine since 1986. Well, not just fine, but why are we doing this? And you ought to hear the answers. When that question is asked, and it’s not very often that it’s asked, the answers are quite telling. “We’re doing it to bring ’em out of the shadows, Mr. Limbaugh, that’s why, bring ’em out of the shadows.” Okay, bring ’em out of the shadows. They’re not in the shadows! They’re all over the place. They’re not in the shadows. “Well, it’s inhumane what we’re doing.” What’s inhumane? They’ve got health care. They can go to the emergency room, what’s inhumane? They’re working.
It’s all about voting. When you get right down to it, that’s all that is being done. There are 11 million people here who can’t vote. That’s gotta change. However we do it, it’s gotta change. And from the Democrat standpoint, we’ve gotta make sure they vote for us. That’s what this is about. “Mr. Limbaugh, I can’t believe that you are so cynical.” Well, Mr. New Castrati, it’s not cynicism. It’s honest, straightforward analysis. I always ask the question why are we doing this. Why are you doing this? Republicans say, “Well, you know, we’re not really getting the Hispanic vote. The Hispanics hate us, and they hate us ’cause they think we hate them, so we gotta show ’em we don’t hate ’em.”
Okay, so how are we gonna do that? “Well, we’re gonna say that we’re for a pathway to citizenship.” That’s what they’ll say. I don’t think they hate us to begin with, but they may have been talked into it. There may be some genuine dislike here, but the way to fix that is not this. But it’s all about voting, folks, both parties. Both parties think there are votes there. The Democrats know there are. The Republicans, they see it happening. “Well, my gosh, we better sign onto this, or they’re gonna really hate us, and then we’ll go for their votes later.” It’s all about votes. What else could it be? Is there anything else it could really be about it? Not to me. If somebody could show me there’s something else where I’m wrong, I’d be more than willing to listen to it.
RUSH: By the way, Chris Cillizza’s point, that piece that I was sharing with you about how all of these scandals are distracting everybody away from amnesty, not here. And I just want to reiterate with all of these things that are going on, amnesty is the biggie, folks, because if amnesty is achieved, then all the rest of this is academic, and we basically have a one-party government and country for at least a generation. By the way, Chris Cillizza, even in his story, Chris Cillizza’s point was that the IRS scandals were distracting talk radio from raising the alarm about amnesty. He admitted that it was talk radio that stopped amnesty in 2007.
Chris Cillizza, the Washington Post. And he said all these other scandals — Benghazi, IRS — are providing cover for amnesty, got talk radio distracted, so they know where their real problems lie. Cillizza admits it. But here’s the point. The amnesty bill, as it’s written, or the pathway to citizenship bill, delays citizenship for a number of years. That’s why you’re hearing pathway to citizenship. Well, what’ll happen, the theory is — and it’s a good one — what’ll happen is if the law is passed, then it’ll immediately be challenged, that this citizenship provision is unconstitutional. You can’t bring these people out of shadows. You can’t grant them this. You can’t do that. They’re citizens now, and all you need is one Obama judge, one liberal judge, and they’re not hard to find these days, and, bammo, you’ve got instant citizenship, instant voting.
So they know if they put this in the legislation, it’s not gonna pass. So this is how they’re gonna get it. Even Bob Menendez, there’s a political story today, Bob Menendez, Democrat Senator, New Jersey, admits that the problem with the bill right now in the Senate is Democrats, not Republicans. They don’t have 60 votes for this thing because they don’t have enough Democrats for it. But he says give us time and we’ll get 70 votes. Well, what the time is needed for, they can’t in this bill come out and say we’re gonna grant ’em citizenship the minute Obama signs it. Nobody, nobody will stand for that.
So the trick, or the deception, is a pathway to citizenship that delays citizenship for a number of years or whatever it is — I think it’s 12 or 13, but regardless — the minute that bill is signed, the next day it’s gonna get challenged. Maybe even Schumer will challenge himself; who knows. But some activist group is gonna challenge the bill as unconstitutional. All you gotta do is go to a federal judge that agrees with the liberals, and, bammo, you got instant citizenship. That is the caller’s theory, and it’s a good one, and it probably is the strategy. ‘Cause they know, in Congress, House and Senate, the American people do not want this. We did this once in 1986. The American people may want some kind of immigration reform, but blanket amnesty they don’t want.
So this is the way to get it and it has the added benefit of having it done under the courts, and when it happens in the courts, it’s over, you can’t challenge the courts. Federal court, Supreme Court, what have you.