We've Been Played on Immigration
June 13, 2013
RUSH: We go to immigration. In a remarkable turn of events, all eight Gang of Eight members voted to table the Grassley amendment, to have control of the border for six months before the amnesty kicks in. And, by the way, don't call it amnesty. It isn't amnesty. That's the latest claim from the powers that be. The Grassley amendment to the Gang of Eight bill simply said we would gain control of the border for six months before any other aspect of the bill -- which is exactly what we were told was supported from the get-go. That's exactly what we were told the condition was: Border security first, or nothing. Now of course that's out the window. So is the Grassley amendment out the window with control of the border for six months.
And again, this despite the sponsors having -- I don't know. I thought I was promised. I thought we were all promised that enforcement would be the key here. I also thought there would be an open amendment process. There's polling data that shows the American people want enforcement first by a 4-to-1 margin. But none of this makes any sense. Try as I have, I can't understand how it makes any sense. I don't understand how the Republicans do not understand what they're doing to themselves with this. I do not understand how it is they do not see what's happening. I don't understand how they don't get what the Democrats are doing, how the Democrats are playing them. I don't get it.
We've talked about this. The Hispanic vote was not even 8% of the electorate. There was a poll out -- I mentioned this to you some weeks ago -- if Romney had got 70% of the Hispanic vote -- and no Republican ever has the -- he still would not have won. The Republicans got 37% of the Hispanic vote back in 1984. Then in 1986, they did amnesty. Then they got 30%. They lost 7% of the Hispanic vote after amnesty in 1988 election when George H. W. Bush ran. The polling data is clear: 70% of the Hispanic voters are gonna vote Democrat no matter what. You bring 11 to 12 million new people out of the shadows, and they're -- I don't know what I'm missing. On the surface, what it appears is -- and I can't believe this. It appears that the Republicans really do fear what the Democrats tell them, that the Hispanics hate you, the Hispanics don't like you, the Hispanics are never gonna vote for you unless you change your opinion on immigration.
I try to put myself in the position of being a Republican in the House or the Senate. I can't for the life of me understand it. I don't understand how they don't see what this is going to do to their party. For the life of me, I don't understand it. Nobody has been able to make me understand what I'm missing. What is the secret that we don't get? What's the secret that we're missing, that they know, that we don't know? Because, on the surface, this doesn't appear to make any sense.
RUSH: Immigration. Again, to refresh your memory, what we mentioned at the top of the program, "in a remarkable turn of events," quote, unquote, remarkable turn of events, all eight gang members voted to table an amendment by Senator Grassley that would have control of the border for six months before the pathway to whatever kicks in. The Gang of Eight and all of its supporters in the House and Senate are now claiming it's not amnesty, and don't call it amnesty. There's a pathway. There are requirements. There are fines, things these people have to do before they become citizens. It's gonna take 10 years, do not call this amnesty.
Anyway, Grassley, because he sensed what was happening here, we were -- folks, I think we've been played. I hate thinking this. I hate saying it. It's one of the reasons I'm in a foul humor today, because I don't know, sometimes I take things too personally. When I think that I'm being played or somebody's insulting my intelligence or taking advantage of my goodwill, it saddens me, it irritates me, and here we are on the cusp things, and essentially we're told that all this talk about securing the border first, it was just that, it was just talk, and I shoulda known based on not my instincts, I mean actual things that happened, I should have known, but I held out hope that what we were being told was actually the truth.
Anyway, Grassley offers his amendment that essentially says border control for six months, secure the border, now, by the way, one of the reasons the Grassley amendment was rejected, "Well, it's gonna take years to secure the border. I mean, we could never do this if we had to secure the border first. It's gonna take six, eight, maybe 10 years," said Senator Chuck-U Schumer. And then Harry Reid is saying forget it, we're never gonna do it. Now that we're on the cusp of the Senate passing the bill, we're never gonna have any border security, what are you people talking about? That was never part of the deal, says Dingy Harry.
Anyway, despite what everybody thought was the sponsors promising that enforcement would come first, and despite polling data which shows that Americans want enforcement first by a 4-to-1 margin, all Gang of Eight members voted to table the Grassley amendment. Let's go to the audio sound bites. Michele Bachmann, who is retiring from Congress -- we mentioned yesterday that there are several in the House, and we were told all along, and I believe this, too, folks -- that the whole thing here was a campaign issue for Obama, that the strategery was have immigration pass the Senate. The Democrats own the Senate, it's gonna pass there no matter what the Gang of Eight does and no matter what we're told, but it will die in the House.
Obama and the Democrats want it to die in the House because once again, they want to be able to run for office in 2014 in the midterms, the Democrats want the House, and be able to campaign on the idea that Republicans are again racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes who hate Hispanics, who don't like Hispanics, want to punish Hispanics, whatever, all because the Republicans vote down immigration reform in the House. Well, a prevailing theory is, no, no, no, we're gonna get immigration reform, comprehensive, amnesty, whatever you want to call it, the House is gonna end up voting for it, and the way it's gonna happen is -- well, here let Michele Bachmann explain it. We have a couple of bites. She was talking to correspondent Garth Kent on WorldNetDaily.com.
BACHMANN: Don't count on the House stopping this bill. This is what's going to happen. The Senate is going to pass a very bad bill. The House will pass what will sound like a pretty good bill, but I'm just here to tell you it's a Trojan horse. Those bills will go to what's called the conference committee. The good guts of the Trojan horse bill will be pulled out. The very bad amnesty provisions will be put in the bill. The bill will go to the House floor, and it won't be Republicans that pass it, it will be Nancy Pelosi leading all the House Democrats to vote for it.
RUSH: Well, but they don't have enough Democrats in the House to secure victory. They're gonna need some Republican votes for it to pass. Now, what she's talking about is, the Senate bill passes and goes to the House. The House doesn't have to deal with that; they can come up with their own bill, which they will. And the House bill, under the theory, will be a very conservative immigration reform bill that does not have amnesty in it. So you have those two bills, amnesty versus no amnesty. They go to conference. Now, who goes to conference? Well, the Senate leaders appoint their negotiators, and the House leaders appoint theirs. The theory is the House leadership will appoint conferees that are not conservative, that are not the Tea Party freshmen, and they'll get together with the Senate conferees, and they're strip out -- Bachmann was saying, the Trojan horse -- they'll strip out the conservative elements of the House bill and agree to the Democrat version of the bill.
That will become the one bill that both houses then vote on, and in order for it to pass the House there are going to have to be some Republicans that vote for it. Even if every Democrat supports it, that's not enough to secure passage. So the theory that's going around requires -- and there is a fear that this will happen, depending on who in the House you talk to -- there's a theory going around that there are some, quote, unquote, RINO Republicans who will vote for essentially the Senate immigration bill. And then, voila, it passes and it gets sent to Obama, and there you go. Now, that's just a fear right now. It's people raising red flags and warning. It could be all wet. The theory could be all wrong. It could be based in fear and not have any basis in fact.
But I just want you to know, there are people who think that's the plan. And we had the sound bite yesterday of the Speaker earlier in the week saying that there will be a bill passing the House by the end of the year, comprehensive immigration reform. There will be. So that, coupled with the other strategy, is leading people to believe that a fix might be in that essentially passes the Senate version of the bill in the House, and we get whatever we get, amnesty or maybe we're not supposed to call it that. Bachmann had this to say in one more sound bite.
BACHMANN: I think the master plan of the ruling class that runs Washington, DC, is to ram this bill through before the American people know what's hit them and before members of Congress even know what has hit them. I hate to tell people once again you've gotta rise up, but I'm just telling you, this is the most important bill that we're going to deal with in the next two years, and so if people are going to weigh in at all, now is the time. The republic's at stake.
RUSH: Okay. So what does that mean, republic is at stake? This is ball game. I remember people saying that about Obamacare. Now they're saying it about immigration reform. And they're both right. In the case of immigration reform, it effectively wipes out the Republican Party. 'Cause here's what I think's gonna happen. We're told there's a 10-year waiting period for the people in the shadows to come out. They have to be identified so we know who they are. During that 10 years they can't vote. During that 10 years they can't get access to Obamacare benefits. They can't get any other benefits. They've gotta go through the process, but we're not gonna punish 'em. We're not gonna deport 'em. We're not gonna penalize them, but they are gonna have to get in line, go through the process, 10 years.
I think probably within the first two days of the 10 years, I'm gonna see Senator Schumer on television talking about how unfair having to wait 10 years is. Since we've gone ahead now and essentially legalized them, it's just inhumane, it's not who we are to make these people who have families and have been working here and have been paying taxes, it's just not fair that they don't have a voice in this democracy, or something like that. And of course others will readily agree because this will sound like it's compassion and love, sensitivity and all these wonderful chickified things that our culture's become, and, voila, there won't be a ten-year waiting period. They might be able to vote in time for the 2016 election.
But regardless, whenever they get the vote, if it's 10 years, if it's two hours, if it's five years, if there are 11, 12 million people here currently unable to vote, and they are Hispanic, and if they fit the profile that polling data gives us, a full 70% of them are gonna vote Democrats. So the numbers work out this way. If you got 11 or 12 million people here that can't vote right now, not legally, but someday will be able to, and 70% of those people are gonna vote Democrat, how in the world does the Republican Party stay -- I hate using this word 'cause it's used incorrectly, but viable, how does the Republican Party stay viable, when they get 30% of whatever that number of millions of new people is?
And here's the real question I have. If I can figure this out, why can't the Republicans? What are you missing, what am I missing in this? See, if I were a Republican in the House, or the Senate, there is no way I would want to participate in something that is going to effectively negate my party. And yet so many Republicans seem eager to do this. It doesn't make sense to me. So there has to be something I'm missing. Are this many people, Republicans, this blind? Or are there this many Republicans that know something we don't know about these people in the shadows and how they intend to vote?
I don't know, folks. I've always been puzzled by the Republicans' seemingly eager to accept all this assistance from the Democrats. I just don't believe the Democrats want to help us get more votes. And the Democrats say, "You know, you guys are gonna have to change the way you are to make these Hispanics like you. You're never gonna be a viable party unless you change your attitudes on Hispanics." The Democrats really want us to get some of their voters? This is why I will never be qualified to be in the ruling class. I'm just too stupid. There are obviously some things I just don't get.
RUSH: Somebody has got a theory on all of this. Edward in Leesburg, Virginia. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hi.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for having me, and hi to your audience. Rush, there is been something that's been troubling me for some time and I just wanted to run this past you. I mean, you've been talking about what are these Republicans up to, and I have a sense, and I don't like saying this, but I get the feeling that there might be a lot of Republicans that might be happy to see the immigration bill pass in hopes of breaking up the country class or the conservative coalition, and that they would probably be happy to switch sides and become Democrats, you know, like Arlen Specter did, in order to find themselves a place in the new order.
RUSH: Okay, now, I can understand that there might be a few Republicans who would like to switch sides to be with the good guys, to not be hated, to be in the "in" crowd, to whatever, and I understand there are Republicans who want to bust up the conservative influence of the party. But what are they gonna be left with after they do that in this case?
CALLER: The only thing I thought is that, okay, maybe they want to switch parties. Maybe, you know, Olympia Snowe or something wants to jump on really --
RUSH: But -- (crosstalk)
CALLER: -- Democrats now. Maybe this whole bunch of them that just want to just move and just say, you know, this is where the power is, this is where I --
RUSH: Well, then just do that. Why go through all of this?
CALLER: I couldn't explain, except the only thing I see is that so many of these Republicans in Washington, DC, and you see them on the Sunday shows, et cetera, and they're always talking down this country. I mean, they are talking all the time. And I just feel that there is an animus that these people have against the people of this country, I mean against the backbone, the foundation of this country, and that people such as us are people who get in the way of them being who they really want to be.
RUSH: I understand that. I know that that's the case. I know that there are a bunch of nonconservative Republicans. I talked about it. Didn't like Reagan. But wiping out their own party to get rid of us still doesn't make sense to me.
RUSH: Maybe, folks, maybe there's a bunch of moderate to liberal Republicans who don't care about being winners. They just want to be elected and be in power. Whatever that means. Maybe they really don't care. I don't know. There has to be something we're missing.
RUSH: I mentioned that Chuck Schumer said that the Grassley bill, which is six months to get the border secure before anything else can happen, Schumer said, "We can't do this in six months, gonna be years and years, 10 years, 13," whatever it is. Here's Chuck Schumer.
SCHUMER: What does this amendment do? It's very simple. It says that the 11 million people living in the shadows cannot even get RPI status, the provisional status by which they can work and travel until, until the secretary of Homeland Security says the border is fully secure. We all know that that will take years and years and years.
RUSH: Exactly right. It'll take years and years and years, but that's what we were told. And we all bought it. We all believed that this was one of the requirements that our guys had before they would support this, that the border would be secure. This is where it failed the last time. We did amnesty in 1986, and they promised border security then, and there wasn't any. And the fact that there wasn't any led to whatever the number is today. I don't think it's 11 million. I think it's much more, many more. But 11 million is the number of the day, so we'll go with it. So we're back where we were in 1986. Okay, well, secure the border this time. We've got to stop this.
I'll tell you where we are now. When this happens, and if there is this ten-year, 13 year, whatever it is, it's not gonna be either of those, but by the law, Gang of Eight bill, is 13 years. In those 13 years, those people that Schumer's talking about cannot get Obamacare, they cannot get any welfare benefits, and guess what? That makes them more hirable. They're cheaper. Employers will hire the newly pathway to citizenship people because they don't have to pay a fine if they don't have health care. They don't have to give them Obamacare benefits. They don't have to provide them workmen's comp, any of that, they don't qualify, they're not citizens yet.
And so in that period of time that they're waiting, they are more hirable, they are more attractive to business. There is that element of this that I should mention, and this I do understand. Big Business people of course want labor costs to be as low as they can get them, and if you've got a pool of 11 million people that all of a sudden don't qualify for Obamacare, and you do not have to provide those benefits, and you do not have to pay a fine, guess who is going to be hired?
I think there's another element to this. Nobody ever looks at this from the perspective of the Hispanics who are living here. But how about this take on it. You've got legalized Hispanic immigrants to this country who are now citizens. Do you think that they're eager to have an influx of whatever numbers of millions it is that are going to be competing with them for work? We are being told part and parcel of this, we're being told -- and this is what the Republicans are buying -- is that there is a monolithic relationship, that there is a monolithic unified relationship of all Hispanics and that they are all desirous that every Hispanic be granted a pathway to citizenship and an eventual citizenship. That there is a unified, monolithic view that they all hold that there is this Hispanic solidarity that all Hispanics want every other Hispanic in the country to be made legal simply because there is this loyalty one Hispanic to the next.
The Republicans are being told that, and Republicans are therefore believing that if something upsets that monolithic view, that if you make one Hispanic mad because you, quote, unquote, mistreat another Hispanic, then all Hispanics are gonna hate you. It would be the same thing as saying all women are gonna hate you if you don't do this, all men are gonna hate you if you don't do that, all homosexuals are gonna hate you if you don't do that. They're all gonna hate you. And the Republicans live in fear of being hated, and it's the Democrats telling them who's gonna hate them. And it's the Republicans believing what the Democrats are telling them about how to be loved. "You better not make the Hispanics mad."
Yet, what if it isn't true? What if there isn't this Hispanic solidarity that's monolithic? What if there are Hispanics who look at other people as just people first, not Hispanics first, and who don't want additional competition for jobs, particularly among people who are less educated and less qualified and, therefore, cheaper? We're being asked to believe so much that just violates basic human nature. It's all part of believing that minorities have a solidarity, that every minority thinks exactly alike and that every member of a minority group hates every member of the majority and that every member of a minority group is in solidarity with everybody else, and that they're all unified against whoever is gonna deny one member of that minority group whatever they want.
It flies in the face of basic human nature. At any rate, the point is that Schumer said, "We can't get that done in a number of years." Dingy Harry says, "We're not going to ever do border security. You guys are whistling a pipe dream." Let's go to Rubio. Rubio on Fox this morning. Bill Hemmer talked to him. "It's obvious that you will not get Republican support unless you convince your colleagues that border security will happen and will be a priority. Will you make that happen?"
RUBIO: I think we can, because what we're asking for is very reasonable. Two things: borders and benefits. On the benefits, we want to make sure that this is not a strain on the American taxpayer. It is not fair to ask the American taxpayer to pay for benefits for people that have violated our immigration laws, and on the border it's not just border, it's eVerify, and entry/exit tracking of visitors. We want to make sure that this never happens again. We don't want to be back here five years from now talking about another five or 10 million people who have entered our country illegally.
RUSH: I don't know how this stops that. I don't know how this stops that, and the thing I don't get is why, just because the Democrats want to do something, that we have to go along. Why can't our reaction to what they want be "no"? Why must there always have to be an alternative that is rooted in what they want? They want 11 million new voters. They don't say that. They say they want citizenship for these poor people that have risked everything to come to America, the great America. They want their freedom from oppression. Who are we to deny these people their humanity? We must grant them a pathway to citizenship. They're here, and they're in the shadows, and the Republicans say, "Hmm, you know what? Since you guys want it we better come up with a version of it, or we're gonna be hated."
Why can't the Republicans say, "No. I tell you what we're gonna do. We're gonna shut down the border. Everything stays the same until we shut down the border. The country and the sun are gonna come up tomorrow. The sun's gonna set. Everybody's gonna go along. Nobody's in great danger. Nobody's threatened here right now. We're gonna secure the border first and then we'll talk about what to do about the people who are here. But the first thing we gotta do is stop the influx." Why can't we do that?
We have Obamacare because they want nationalized health care, and we didn't say "no." We said, "Well, okay, we've gotta have an answer to this. We've gotta have our own version of this. We gotta have our own smarter way of doing this." Pick the issue. The Democrats are always driving. They're always the ones wanting bigger government, more government, and we never say "no." We always think we have to have an alternative to whatever they propose. Why don't we take the initiative and say, "You know what, we need to get rid of some government."
We own the House. Why don't we do this? We could stop everything they want to do. We would force Obama to do it by executive order. We can stop everything they want to do, but we don't. We don't push back. I guess we have a mind-set of permanent minority. We have a mind-set, apparently, that says most people hate us. The Democrats advance something, people love Democrats, and people must want this, so we better look like we're in favor of some of it, otherwise we're gonna be hated. I interpret how the Republicans react to things and what they do.
Hemmer then said to Rubio, "Are you saying that you can get Republican support because of border security? You're saying that you can convince your colleagues and moderate Democrats that illegals will not get the benefits of federal government? You believe at the end of this year, as Speaker Boehner said, the immigration will be signed into law, 2013?"
RUBIO: Well, that will depend on border and benefits. If we have an immigration reform bill that secures the border, ensures that we don't have another wave of illegal immigration in the future, and protects the American taxpayer by denying federal benefits to those who have violated our immigration laws, if the Democrats or whoever refuses to agree to that, we will not.
RUSH: Sounds good. Sounds good but then I've got the story here: In a remarkable turn of events all Gang of Eight members voted to table the Grassley amendment to have control of the border for six months before amnesty kicks in. So it sounds good, and they're not gonna get benefits. Does anybody expect that to survive? Can you see Schumer finding the nearest camera and microphone within a couple of weeks: "These people, we have just said that they're now legal terms of a pathway to citizenship. We have officially welcomed these people, and we're denying them health care? And we're denying their kids' education? What kind of a country is this?"
And the pressure will then be brought to bear to have an amendment that allows the benefits. Well, again, it's intelligence guided by experience, vice-versa. Pretty predictable. So then, let's see, last night, I guess, The O'Reilly Factor. O'Reilly is talking to Rubio. O'Reilly said, "Senator Leahy from Vermont says that he wants gay illegal aliens to bring in their gay friends and their gay partners or whatever and he's trying to get that rider, that amendment on the immigration bill. Is that gonna happen?"
RUBIO: If that happens, the bill is dead. It certainly won't have my support. I've been very clear on that. I respect people's views on the issue, but that is not -- this is already tough enough as it is; to inject something as divisive as that, if that gets on the bill, the bill's gonna die. There's no doubt about it.
RUSH: I have to take a break, but I don't understand why. Why does that kill it?