Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH: The Democrats yesterday were begging Obama not to gum up the works by offering his own bill that would compete with whatever the Congress comes up with, and he’s gonna do it anyway, and he’s gonna have a provision in this bill that undercuts the Senate bill. The linchpin of the Senate bill — and that’s if we take everybody at their word here. (I know, I know. But for the sake of the discussion, we will, just for now.)

If you take everybody at their word, they’re promising border security first. I’m not buying into it. Don’t misunderstand. I’m just saying, for the sake of the hypothetical, they’re all saying — they’re all agreeing — they’ll secure the border first and then start on the pathway to citizenship and all the rest. The point is Obama is saying, “No, I’m not going to secure the border first, and I don’t believe in that.” So he’s gonna undercut ’em here in about 45 minutes when he makes his speech.

He’s gonna undercut the whole thing. So the question is, “What’s his purpose here?” and I think he wants the issue. I don’t think Obama wants to compromise on anything. Obama’s out for political victories. Our guys are out for compromise. You know, our guys think that’s what the American people want. Obama makes people think that he’s engaging in compromise — he’s got his fair approach, his balanced approach — but he’s not. He’s out for total political victory.

He wants to, essentially, annihilate the Republican Party. So torpedoing the foundation of the Rubio bill, torpedoing the foundation of the Senate bill — if, in fact, he does that in his Las Vegas speech — tells me that he’s not interested immigration reform. He wants the unsettledness and the chaos and the argument to go on for two more years ’cause it allows him to beat up Republicans and lie about them and continue to call ’em anti-Hispanic, insensitive, anti-immigrant and all that.

While he’s the obstacle, while he’s the guy standing in the way of anything happening, he’s got two years to blame the Republicans for it in hopes of winning the House. If he wins the House and he’s got total control of the government again, why leave in 2016? TheHill.com, a story by Alexander Bolton: “The late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) continues to exert an influence on the Senate, the chamber in which he served for 47 years. Democrats cited Kennedy, long known as the ‘Lion of the Senate,’ as an inspiration when they passed the healthcare reform law at the start of President ObamaÂ’s first term.

“Now, nearly four years after Kennedy’s death, senators in both parties are channeling his memory as they pursue immigration reform. ‘If we do succeed, and I think we will, it will be a testimonial to Ted KennedyÂ’s effort years ago that laid the groundwork for this agreement,’ said Sen. John McCain…” Well, that “years ago” is 1986, and it was Ted Kennedy who promised that we would never have to face what we’re now facing.

They said if we just did Simpson-Mazzoli, if we just signed the amnesty bill back in 1986, if we did it, that’s the end of it. “We’ll never have to do it again.” So here we are — what is it? — twenty-seven, 26, whatever years later, and everything’s repeating, including using Ted Kennedy to sell the damn thing and crediting Ted Kennedy for what has been a failure, for what turned out to be a giant misrepresentation. So the logical question to ask is:

“Okay, they gave us amnesty in ’86, and they said they were gonna do border enforcement,” which means no more illegals. “We’re gonna shut it down. We’re gonna grant these 1.5 million people amnesty,” which is what we were talking about in ’86. “We’re gonna legalize ’em. We’re gonna grant ’em amnesty and that’s the solution.” So here come the same people with the same language. Why are we supposed to expect anything different this time around, especially with a president like Barack Obama?

What’s gonna be different, especially when they’re citing the words of Ted Kennedy? Well, that’s where Rubio comes in. Rubio is a true believer. Now, Rubio admitted he’s new to the ways of the Senate. (He’s gonna learn fast.) He is new to the ways of the Senate, but he has lived the immigration problem, and he knows how to talk about it. So we will see how this all plays out.

Now, there are detractors. Senator Jeff Sessions, who is the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and the former ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued a statement on the new push for comprehensive immigration reform and amnesty. He said, “Americans overwhelmingly oppose illegal immigration. They have pleaded with Congress to end the mass illegality for decades to little avail.

“All the while, millions have been added to the total of those illegally here. It’s time to fix that broken system. Now we are told that the Obama administration and members of Congress say they have a plan that they promise will do the job. So, the American people will need to watch closely. And, members of Congress must insist that they have a full and complete opportunity to study and amend such legislation.”

Nothing in secret here.

That’s part of Sessions’ statement. Ted Cruz, the senator from Texas, said, “I appreciate the good work that senators in both parties have put into trying to fix our broken immigration system. There are some good elements in this proposal, especially increasing the resources and manpower to secure our border and also improving and streamlining legal immigration. However,” Senator Cruz said, “I have deep concerns with the proposed path to citizenship.

“To allow those who came here illegally to be placed on such a path is both inconsistent with rule of law and profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who waited years, if not decades, to come to America legally,” and he’s exactly right, which of course leads to the question: “What’s special about immigrants from Mexico and Latin America? What’s special? We all know the answer. They’re plentiful, and they vote Democrat.

Folks, you can say that I’m just being cynical and all that, but I’m not. It’s the truth. It’s reality. It’s like I say: If 70% of these illegals voted Republican, the Democrats would be the ones building the wall on the border. If 70% of illegals voted Republican, the Democrats would be the ones refusing amnesty, demanding border security, building the wall, doing everything they could. They’d be arming everybody to keep ’em out!

So let there be no mistake what this is about from the Democrat side. They need a permanent underclass. They need voters. They need money to fund Social Security. They need all kinds of things. And, as the economy proves (if it ever does), and people do raise their economic circumstances, you need people to fill in at the lower end. That’s what this is about for them. Make no mistake.


RUSH: Okay, let’s go to the this press conference yesterday. We got Chuck Schumer leading off. We have McCain and Bob Menendez, which, you know, this is crazy, Menendez with the prostitutes down in the Caribbean, and he’s, of course, untouchable. He’s no problem. And then Alan Simpson from 1987. I just want you to hear the similarities. Up first here is Chuck-U Schumer. This is from yesterday, Capitol Hill.

SCHUMER: To prove to the American people that we’re seriously — that we are serious about permanently ending illegal immigration to the US, we say that we will never put these individuals on a path to citizenship until we have fully secured our borders and combated the pattern of people overstaying their legal immigration visas.

RUSH: Okay, that’s Chuck-U. Here’s McCain.

MCCAIN: I think everyone agrees that it’s not beneficial for our country to have these people here hidden in the shadows. Let’s create a system to bring them forward, allow them to settle their debt to society and fulfill the necessary requirements to become law-abiding citizens of this country.

RUSH: Bob Menendez says that once we give them this amnesty, that’s it, it’s their last chance.

MENENDEZ: When this becomes a law, individuals who are undocumented in the country would come forward at that moment, and they would register with the government and have a pending status. Now, that is not permanent residency. They have to earn that over a long period of time. We’re going to have to have the security elements of the border, and then we will have a process where they’ll have to wait at the end of the line, make sure that people who are presently waiting under the existing system to adjust — to get their status here in the United States, which is part of what we envision having to deal with.

RUSH: Okay, Chuck-U, John McCain, Bob Menendez. Now, let’s go back to the archives at C-SPAN. March 16th, 1987, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, then-Senator Alan Simpson, then-Congressman Bill Richardson participated in a debate about immigration reform. Simpson is the Simpson in Simpson-Mazzoli. During the audience Q&A, somebody said, “Senator Simpson, don’t you think that legalizing the illlegal aliens will just encourage more aliens to come here, hoping that Congress will pass another bill six years down the road? It’s unfair to others who’ve waited in line.”

SIMPSON, 1987: People will say, “Do you mean, Simpson, that you would legalize people who are here illegally while millions are standing in line to get in legally?” And I said, “Yes, I would, under these conditions.” To remove from our society a fearful subculture of human beings who are afraid to go to the cops, afraid to go to a hospital, afraid to go to their employer. The alternative is, if you couldn’t find ’em coming in, how do you find them to get them out? And you do that by going on the hunt. And I’ll skip that one; thank you. They can take my name off the bill if they go on the hunt. That’s your alternative to legalization. There is no other alternative except setting the date.

RUSH: Another audience member said, “Senator Simpson, what happens to an alien if, for example, an employer says, ‘You’re gonna stay here in this country conditional on your employment, and as soon as you leave your employment with me, you’re subject to deportation’? It’s a technical problem, but I think there will be a lot of people stuck in that gap whereby they’ll be deported if they leave their current employer.”

SIMPSON: There are going to be people who are going to slip through the cracks, and that’s what oversight is about. There are gonna be a group of aliens who have come after ’82 and before this date who may have US citizen children on top of that, and this group is going to be treated like any other alien in the US. They will apply, if eligible, to be immigrants under our legal immigration system. If they do not qualify and are apprehended, they will be subject to deportation.

RUSH: Up next was Bill Richardson. Question: “Many of the opponents said that it was rewarding the lawbreakers. What do you say to that?”

RICHARDSON: We had an opportunity to bring four million people out of the shadows who had been working, participating constructively in this society, and I think it was our obligation as a nation of immigrants, to give them that, not instant citizenship, not amnesty, but a process by which they would move from temporary resident to permanent residents, into a citizenship, within a period of five years. The hook to proceed with legalization was to have at the same time sanctions so that those coming in would not be given that same privilege. That was the hook. If you’re gonna have legalization, you have sanctions.

RUSH: Okay. So that’s Bill Richardson and Alan Simpson back in 1987 sounding just like people who speak on this today. Let’s go back to October 15th, 1986, during the heat of the battle here on the Today Show, Chuck-U Schumer talking about Simpson-Mazzoli.

SCHUMER: The American people have become aware that millions of people are just coming over the borders and that nothing has been done, and for once people have said, “Look, it may not be a perfect bill, but it’s better than nothing.”

RUSH: Right. So we did Simpson-Mazzoli. It was gonna end all of this. After we do Simpson-Mazzoli, we’re not gonna have to deal with any of this anymore. And then yesterday, or back to 2007, I don’t care where you go, certain years in the Bush administration, second term, yesterday, current-day proponents got up, start talking about the issue, it’s the same damn thing.

Folks, I tell you what’s been happening. We’re being whipsawed out there. It was just five minutes ago, in practical terms, five minutes ago, “We gotta get rid of guns. We gotta get rid of every gun. It’s absolutely essentially we get rid of guns.” Today we gotta have amnesty. Tomorrow it’s gonna be something else. And in every case, you know who the enemy is, us. Law-abiding people who believe in the rule of law. We’re the ones that have to be dealt with, we’re the problem. The rule of law types are the problem. This is a diabolical attack on the philosophical underpinnings of the country.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This